To know there is no god?

[Godless]

Here's a book on Leprechauns Lg!

That little word "validate" has come to bite you on the ass huh?

I suppose that we can expect your validation of a saintly person, how exactly do we know a saintly person, from a preacher who molest children? Weren't they suppose to have had the epistemology of a saintly person?

 

[lightgigantic]

Knowledge does have prerequisites. Rationalism and empiricism being among them.

you are just revealing your lack of knowledge again - actually rationalism and empriricism frequently contradict each other

But quoting the mythical superstitions of primitive and ancient cultures doesn't qualify as knowledge in anything but that culture's mythology.

then perhaps you could reveal what empirical and rational process you applied to determine (beyond the realm of tentativeness of course) that god is a culturally derived phenomena (this ought to be good)

Indeed, by stating that your BG quote is accurate, you're making a "confidence statement."

actually saying that god is a culturally derived phenomena is a confidence statement, since it is completely speculative

More BS from the BSer.

if ad homs were an indication of intelligence, you would be a genius

 

[SkinWalker]

Sure. I'll answer your questions. You answer mine first.

 

[lightgigantic]

Snakelord
“

BG 3.28: One who is in knowledge of the Absolute Truth, O mighty-armed, does not engage himself in the senses and sense gratification, knowing well the differences between work in devotion and work for fruitive results.
”
Now kindly explain how that validates the claims of saintly persons/Lenny followers.

sorry - can't speak for lenny followers like yourself

“
I just find it strange that a person should ask for an example of a normative description in scripture since you would be hard pressed to find an example that is not normative (or can not be placed in a normative context
”
I find it equally strange that a person would believe, without anything in support of that belief, that text in a book somehow validates the claims of direct perception of space beings.

so would I - however claims accompanied by normative descriptions require to be appraised differently (in other words practice and theory comes into play)

“
regarding your toy spaceship - it seems you have more misconceptions than your average atheist
”
From what I have seen you don't know the first thing about atheists, or much else for that matter.

so enlighten me

“
you jumped the gun by saying you spoke to one the other day - my question to you is how did you identify him?
”
He made a claim to direct perception and supported it with normative descriptions in scripture.

I think you are in a muddle - i was asking about qualification, not process

Hey don't blame me, you said it.

I said it about process

Hell, you even show it in your next statement. You go on to quote scripture when I ask you to explain to me how to identify a saintly person.

it was a quote about the qualities of a saintly person however

Ok, he used different scripture so I suppose we now need to debate what exact scripture to use to become a saintly person and have direct perception, but I didn't jump any gun, I merely followed what you had said.

somehow I doubt you possess the prerequisites for such a discussion to be fruitful

“

and you wonder why I doubt you can neutrally represent me?
”
I didn't say it, a qualified saintly person did. Take your issue up with him.

since I never spoke to him directly, my issue was dealing with how capable you are of representing me (with the side issue of whether or not you are capable of identifying a saintly person or not)

“
*yawn*Once again how do you distinguish between a person who really has direct perception of phenomena in physics?
”
Ah, that old chestnut once again. Question with a question. Seemingly you're a very slow learner. I would ask that you not do that. Answer a question first and then pose your question in return. So, how do you actually distinguish who really has direct perception?

its no co-incidence that the answer to both questions operate on the same general principle - if you haven't got the intelligence to determine whether a scientist is qualified or not (despite apparently working in the field) it is not my problem

“
if you examine the general principles of the above process of acquiring knowledge you will see that you have applied the same general principles to become qualified in your field of knowledge (theory - > practical -> values) - alternatively you could have just got your degree over the net
”
Nice to see there are alternative methods to becoming qualified. However, for now that is neither here nor there. When I said "says who", I was generally trying to ask who ascertains that a claim to direct perception is valid? You said, matter of factly, that they "develop direct perception" and yet still haven't explained how you have managed to validate their claim of direct perception. Did you perhaps see what they saw through their eyes?

unless one is qualified, how can one see through the eyes of a person in possession of knowledge ?
How much of what you hold on to as true and reveal is revealed to you by dint of your direct pereception and how much is revealed simply by accepting the claims of others? (have you been to the gobi desert? Have you spoken fluent latin and sanskrit? Have you peered down an electron microscope? Have you measured the levels of carbon in the south pole for the past 40 years? etc etc)

“
and you complain about me repeating the eg with the physicist? - how can you validate the claims of a physicist unless one has the knowledge foundations of a physicist (why can't a linguist validate the claims of a physicist?)
”
Ah, that old chestnut once again. Question with a question. Kindly don't do it. Once more: how can you validate that they do indeed have direct perception?

it seems that you have no understanding of the principles of knowledge - if you ask how can one have direct perception of a claim of knowledge without being qualified, the answer is "you can't" - If you disagree I challenge you to provide an example of some direct perception of subtle knowledge that can be ascertained without meeting any prerequisites - good luck

“
a rocket scientist could show you many things but you probably wouldn't be able to tell if they were upside down or not.
”
Look, we're discussing space beings, let's try and keep analogies in a familiar context. Lenny will allow you to use him as an example. As a man that has direct perception of Lenny I could probably explain many things to you that you wouldn't understand. My question, which you also don't understand, is how does one go about validating my claim to direct perception of Lenny?

if you think you can validate a claim simply by trying to jump to direct perception and avoid the whole issue of qualification and process, your level of education won't take you much further than preschool

Indeed I asked this in my last post to which you said:

“
at least I know how one can become a qualified rocket scientist, physicist or saintly person (in other words i have knowledge of the process) - since you have yet to offer a process that leads to direct perception, all you have are unsubstantiated claims.
”
To which I should now simply give the LG answer and think that suffices. Ok, you ready for it? Here it comes.... "normative descriptions in scripture".

then provided the scripture you are referring to is reliable, and your understanding of the process is sufficient (things that could be ascertained by further investigation), then you simply have another word for the name god - just like if I apply the required paradigm for physics and am properly qualified, yet I insist on calling an atom "lenny the leprechaun", then I have an issue with semantics and not the noumena of phenomena

There is a book of Lenny that I can share with you if you want and there are processes that lead to direct perception but I'm unsure, given your own statements, what use it would serve to fill you in. It would be.. hmm.. like a rocket scientist explaining things to you. You wouldn't know what was upside down or not. No offence, but you'd be the high school dropout.

what you fail to understand is that processes are subject to scrutiny - direct perception (as indicated by the rocket scientist) is not

If you honestly want to learn and know about Lenny - which will lead to direct perception, there are certain things that must be done and clearly the pair of us don't really agree with learning things "over the net".

so you have moved from your earlier descriptions of lenny - which simply led to the direct perception of persons who direct perception - it seems you are making some advancement in your understanding of the principles of knowledge - congratulations

Would you disagree with that? Do you think a person can become a saintly person and get direct perception of god over the net?

I talked of theory, practice and values - in other words the the three general foundations of knowledge - theory leads to prac and prac leads to values - if the net leads to prac, yes it could be possible

“
maybe you don't understand me - or perhaps more correctly you take special delight in not understanding me
”
That's nouns for you LG, they cause problems. You go on to make the claim that faith is "inductive knowledge" when faith is more: Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

so since there is no logical or material evidence for you possessing a mind I can safely say your comments are mindless?

As a result of that, kindly cite examples of fields of knowledge that work on faith.

erm - all of them

“
since you like calling anything related to theism horse poo and the like its obvious that you are completely unwilling to undergo any of the prerequisites for knowledge in the field
”
Seems you misunderstand. What you're saying is horse poo, not 'anything related to theism'.

since you cannot even delineate the prerequisites or conclusions of the field its obvious what type of feces you are situated in

Furthermore, I'm far from 'unwilling', that simply goes to show how little you know the people you talk to. What I have been doing is asking you, (undoubtedly the more qualified.. *lol*), to teach me these things. If there is an issue, it's because you're doing a piss poor job.

so you think in the case of the high school drop out, what is required is a better teacher?

“
if one didn't have faith that the claims of a physicist were true (like for instance when one is a young child and not capable of verifying or invalidating such claims) one would not have the slightest interest in being a physicist
”
What a load of old verbal flatulence. I gained my interest in chemistry, (for example), from being taught chemistry and having a home chemistry set.

so faith was cultivated at an early stage - ironically if the knowledge was to do with theism instead of chemistry people might label you as brainwashed

I, clearly unlike you, questioned everything my teacher said - and everything my teacher said was shown to be true via evidence. Mix this and that chemical and the house blows up.

if you would have had no faith in chemistry, it would be very difficult to be satisfied by making red things turn yellow or white things form bubbles (in other words your home chemistry set was a foundation for the contemplation of bigger things and greater ambitions - all of which were beyond your level of direct perception - hence faith)

While faith is involved for those that just believe and done with it, have no questions concerning it's validity but just believe it because they can, it does not stand up to scrutiny in most cases, (other than faith issues such as believing in sky beings).

obviously if one rides with faith all the way, it causes severe problems - the general progress of knowledge is applying faith to come to realizations- or to put it in scientific terms - hypothesis to conclusion

Someone tells you the cup of tea they have just made you is cool. You could take the faith method, (throw it down your throat), or the evidence gaining method, (take a sip to see).

either way, the initial medium either process works in is faith - for instance you have faith it is actually tea and not poison

Same with crossing the road, you could take the faith method, (walk out without looking), or the evidence gaining method, (look left and right).

once again, either way, the initial medium is faith - is it sufficient to look both ways once? twice? ten times?

Everything we do is via the evidence gaining method.

and it is absurd to talk of the evidence gaining method without faith - if you try and give more examples I can give further explanations why (hell - even to do anything in science it requires the faith that there are certain laws of the phenomenal world in action that make the findings of science repeatable through experiment - if you didn't have that you couldn't even think that one could get sparks from striking flint)

“
much like you don't have the slightest interest in being a theist
”
By asking questions concerning it I am clearly 'evidence gaining'.

your frequent slip into ad hom reveals your inability to entertain ideas on their own merit

You're doing absolutely nothing to validate the claims and thus without the evidence I do not just adopt faith and accept it as true - which is why I am not a theist.

I never claimed I could give you direct pereception - that is what the analogy of the high school drop out is all about

Likewise I have no 'faith' that what physicists say is true, if I am interested in learning about physics I would gain the required evidence to support the claims of those physicists and if it stands up and is supported then I will delve further into it.

before you could do that however you would have to get a degree in physics - unless of course your direct perception is so mighty that you can determine the gravitational constant of an atom .....

“
I said: how does one validate the claim of direct perception?
”
“
You said: easy - BECOME QUALIFIED
”
In short: To validate/invalidate the claims of direct perception you must also have direct perception - which ultimately means that everything is true because you can't invalidate it if you have direct perception (and thus have validated it).

therefore intelligent claims of direct perception (that want to be taken as more than mere tentative claims) come packaged with a process to apply (apply a process - > become qualified)

“
if you disagree perhaps you could explain how one can validate or invalidate any claim in physics
”
Certainly. The claimant provides evidence for their claim. In regards to your space beings there is no evidence, just the claim.

and if a person does not know the first thing about physics, how is the evidence validated or invalidated (why are new findings in science put before bodies of scientists and not car mechanics?)

“
examine the process you advocate as a prerequisite (which you haven't done yet)
”
Ok, I have "examined the process". What now? How do I go about validating the claim of direct perception or how do you go about invalidating that claim?

all you have alluded to, for the sake of argument, is that the process of validating lenny is identical to the process advocated for validating god - its kind of like if you say the process for validating lenny is identical for validating that water is H2O - if that was the case, then we have an issue of semantics (since what most people accept as the qualities of H20, you accept as lenny)

For the sake of argument I'll just borrow your process: normative descriptions in scripture. What now?

if everything is identical then you have god
now i could test you - like for instance you point to a green dress and say 'that is a green dress" yet I ask you cannot tell me what colour the grass is, it s obvious that you have no knolwedge of what is meant by the word green.
So the first question I would ask, is what are the quotes from the book of lenny you so firmly advocate that tell us something about the relationship of the living entity with this phenomenal world and also with lenny himself?

 

[lightgigantic]

Sure. I'll answer your questions. You answer mine first.

there wasn't a single question in your post
does that mean you will now answer my q's?
:shrug:

 

[SnakeLord]

sorry - can't speak for lenny followers like yourself

I did also mention 'saintly persons'. I wonder why, given that you clearly knew what I'd written, you ignored it completely in preference of your above quoted nonsense.

however claims accompanied by normative descriptions require to be appraised differently (in other words practice and theory comes into play)

It's unclear how any of this would actually validate a claim to direct perception of space beings.

so enlighten me

In this instance you would be the high school dropout. What would you have me do?

I think you are in a muddle - i was asking about qualification, not process

Righty ho, how does one determine, in this instance, the man's qualification?

it was a quote about the qualities of a saintly person however

So the qualities of a person identify that they're qualified? (So in this instance the man would be 'qualified' by virtue of being a "kind friend", "tolerant" etc etc?

somehow I doubt you possess the prerequisites for such a discussion to be fruitful

Awww please, you're hurting my feelings. :bugeye: Only joking, I don't mind you using me and my inability as an excuse whenever you need to.

since I never spoke to him directly, my issue was dealing with how capable you are of representing me

Well, have some faith. Your above quote makes it seem like you want actual evidence. What is that all about?

However, if it helps at all I simply printed out your posts and showed them to him so it's not about me representing you but you representing you.

its no co-incidence that the answer to both questions operate on the same general principle - if you haven't got the intelligence to determine whether a scientist is qualified or not (despite apparently working in the field) it is not my problem

I see. I ask a question concerning saintly people to which you then bring scientists into the equation, while not answering the question, while insulting my intelligence or lack thereof.

Needless to say, distinguishing that a man has a degree in genetics and distinguishing that a man can actually see invisible space beings are two completely different things. You're being simply dishonest by trying to compare the two.

The "process" to come to direct perception of a god differs vastly from one belief to another. In the case of many christians all one must do is ask god to show himself and it will be done. So simply by asking one would therefore be 'qualified'. People have done this and then make the claim that they do indeed have direct perception: "I asked god to show himself to me and he did". How does one go about validating or invalidating that claim? You state that one must also apply the process - which I have argued against because then you can't invalidate anything unless you have actually validated it in which case you can never invalidate anything.

If a man came up to me, (it does happen), and says he can hear voices that order him to beat up inanimate objects you would have me believe that the only way to invalidate his claims are for me to also hear that very same voice getting me to beat up those inanimate objects, in doing so actually validating his claim.

Surely you can see the problem with that?

How much of what you hold on to as true and reveal is revealed to you by dint of your direct pereception and how much is revealed simply by accepting the claims of others? (have you been to the gobi desert? Have you spoken fluent latin and sanskrit? Have you peered down an electron microscope? Have you measured the levels of carbon in the south pole for the past 40 years? etc etc)

A common theist tactic used to try and somehow justify their completely lacking in evidence beliefs. I believe you've tried this many times with your 'you havent seen the president' speeches and yet no valid comparison can really be made. The existence of the president is evident - there is plenty of evidence to show that he does indeed exist and in saying, direct perception of the president is not an issue. The same can be said of the gobi desert, the existence of languages and so on. With claims where there is no evidence to support the claim, believing that claim to be true is simple foolishness.

it seems that you have no understanding of the principles of knowledge

The claim to my lack of understanding isn't an answer to the question, it's an excuse.

if you ask how can one have direct perception of a claim of knowledge without being qualified, the answer is "you can't"

No, for a long time now I have asked you very simply how one can validate a claim to direct perception of space beings or leprechauns etc. You started with "normative descriptions in scripture". I asked how this helped actually validate the claims to which you then waffled on about physicists and linguists and car mechanics while completely avoiding the question. You spoke of process and quality and qualification which is just a smoke screen to avoid answering one simple question that you seemingly didn't want to answer.

What we have actually come down to is that "you can't", and that was all it took. Why needlessly bore me with worthless nonsense when you could have just said "you can't" pages ago and done with it?

Of course it still leaves us with a serious problem. We can't validate or invalidate the claims of direct perception of space beings/voices in the head/leprechauns unless we also have direct perception of space beings/voices in the head/leprechauns in which case there is nothing to invalidate. This invariably puts me out of a job.

if you think you can validate a claim simply by trying to jump to direct perception and avoid the whole issue of qualification and process

I didn't say any such thing. Now, according to many religious folk the way to get direct perception of their god is simply to ask. That is the process. You become qualified the instant you actually have direct perception of their god, right? That is the 'qualification' here.. they have direct perception, you don't. Now, it seems that your process to coming to direct perception differs to theirs. How do we distinguish exactly who's claimed process is valid? By putting ourselves through that process? And then if both processes fail to end up with a result? Does that make the process wrong, or would you continue to claim the process works and is right but that the person going through the process didn't do it sufficiently? In which case, given that the process itself is never questioned, how do you ascertain which process is valid? What you're left with are claimants who say the process worked - and now consider themselves qualified based upon a claim that you can't validate.

Now, to rephrase all of that, let's look at the process concering Lenny the leprechaun:

One process of coming to know leprechauns has been known to man for hundreds of years.. You yourself will even be aware of this process: touch wood/knock on wood. This process has since fallen into superstition by the unqualified and the purpose of that process is largely forgotten. There are also other processes including placing a coin in front of a tree, (oak is preferable).

So: Place a coin, (any), in front of a tree. Then touch/knock on that tree and ask sincerely for a leprechaun to come and see you. Lenny requires a bit more work as he is the big cheese of leprechauns, but the process will at least allow you to get direct perception of leprechauns.

Now, here is the problem: If you fail to get direct perception of leprechauns after going through the process, the process cannot be faulted - only you can.

So, how do we validate the process unless we get direct perception of leprechauns and then how do you proceed to validate the claim of direct perception?

Kindly stick to the leprechaun/god issue as opposed to trying to reflect the issues found here with other, non-related, fields when you respond.

then provided the scripture you are referring to is reliable

How do you determine the reliability of scripture, (or in this case the book of Lenny)?

what you fail to understand is that processes are subject to scrutiny

How so? Who is the one doing the scrutinizing? It can't be the one that has not gone through that process, (the unqualified), it can't be the high school dropout - no it seems the only one that can scruitnize the process is the one that's gone through that process - and yet if he fails to end up with the claimed result by following the process it isn't the process that comes under scrutiny but the person that has gone through the process.

So, how and who can scrutinize the process I have advocated for leprechauns? You certainly can't.

so since there is no logical or material evidence for you possessing a mind I can safely say your comments are mindless?

You can say so by faith, (i.e you have no evidence to support what you're claiming). There is evidence, you simply haven't taken the time to look at that evidence - instead happy to just take it on faith.

erm - all of them

Cite an example.

so you think in the case of the high school drop out, what is required is a better teacher?

A high school dropout doesn't generally drop out because he's a moron but because he has little to no interest in the subject matter. His life is filled with things that are, to him, of more use than learning or caring about some specific subject. Perhaps a better teacher might help, but then if he has no interest in the actual subject it's unlikely. In this instance on the other hand the student has interest in the subject but the teacher is failing to teach adequately. As such, yes.. a better teacher would help.

so faith was cultivated at an early stage

Incorrect. Interest was cultivated at an early age. We're going to have problems if you cannot distinguish the difference between interest and faith.

if you would have had no faith in chemistry, it would be very difficult to be satisfied by making red things turn yellow or white things form bubbles

Incorrect. If I had no interest in chemistry, it would be very difficult to be satisfied by making red things turn yellow - thus I would end up the dopout with regards to chemistry.

Now at least we have found the source of the problem: you seem to think that interest is the same thing as faith.

(in other words your home chemistry set was a foundation for the contemplation of bigger things and greater ambitions - all of which were beyond your level of direct perception - hence faith)

Incorrect. I had an interest in chemicals and got a chemistry set which lead me to find out what certain chemicals actually did which in turn led to me gaining more evidence of what other chemicals did as a direct result of my interest in the subject matter.

the general progress of knowledge is applying faith to come to realizations

Incorrect. It's about evidence testing to come to realisations. Faith does not come to realisations, well.. it does, but simply because you say it does.

or to put it in scientific terms - hypothesis to conclusion

'a proposal intended to explain certain facts or observations'

It isn't faith that leads to hypothesis, it is a proposal based upon facts and observations. While the hypothesis might be inaccurate upon further investigation, the hypothesis is based upon what is known.

for instance you have faith it is actually tea and not poison

Not at all. It would be faith if you believed, for no good reason, that the tea was in fact poison, but the reverse does not work. If you were to actually even consider the possibility then it would come down to the observational, (what the tea looks/smells like.. do you know the person that made the tea etc).

Never before in your life have you heard of the wongle dongle monster. That does not mean that for your entire life you have had faith with regards to the existence or lack thereof of the wongle dongle monster. Hopefully you'll manage to understand the reason and relevance of that statement.

is it sufficient to look both ways once? twice? ten times?

Take into account the evidence: do you have good eyesight? Needless to say if you're blind the evidence would suggest that looking left and right is completely pointless. There is lots more evidence that will be taken into account: what kind of road is it, is your visibility clear or hindered by parked vans etc? The only faith comes in the form of walking out because you simply believe the road will be clear.

and it is absurd to talk of the evidence gaining method without faith

Only if you have an inadequate understanding of 'faith', (which is evidenced by you thinking it's equal to interest).

your frequent slip into ad hom reveals your inability to entertain ideas on their own merit

Do me a lemon, this coming from the person that has attempted to insult me and my intelligence etc around 10 times in the last post alone. Puhleaase.

before you could do that however you would have to get a degree in physics

Ok. What pray tell is the degree you gain that provides you with direct perception of space beings?

therefore intelligent claims of direct perception (that want to be taken as more than mere tentative claims) come packaged with a process to apply (apply a process - > become qualified)

In saying, the claim to direct perception of leprechauns must be one of these "intelligent claims" as it has that process. If you undergo the process but do not become "qualified" the process can't be faulted, only your ability to do it properly.

and if a person does not know the first thing about physics, how is the evidence validated or invalidated

Put a ball at the top of a hill and it rolls down it. Every single time. And yes, that can be demonstrated to you, you need not roll it down the hill yourself. Reproduction of the claim. The problem as I've explained is that if the process doesn't work, with regards to gods and Lenny, you cannot fault the process, only the person.

all you have alluded to, for the sake of argument, is that the process of validating lenny is identical to the process advocated for validating god

Incorrect.

if everything is identical then you have god

Or you have a leprechaun and when you say god you simply mean leprechaun.. :bugeye:

 

[Sarkus]

:bravo:

If you can, sir, imagine me now standing up and doffing my cap to you in admiration.

 

[Michael]

I just wonder why no theist here has ever admitted the fact that they don't really know that there is a god.

Some do. I knew a Catholic Agnostic Priest.

 

[IceAgeCivilizations]

There are many non-born-again people in Christendom.

 

[Godless]

Ok. What pray tell is the degree you gain that provides you with direct perception of space beings?

He a loon, pseudo intellectual, perhaps an excrementologist! this would "validate" why he's full of shit!

 

[SkinWalker]

there wasn't a single question in your post
does that mean you will now answer my q's?
:shrug:

So to you, post #80 didn't question a thing about your assertions? Must every inquiry end in a "?" for it to be clear? Please don't take the cowardly approach, LG. Enlighten us on why your assertions aren't mere "confidence statements."

 

[lightgigantic]

Snakelord

“
sorry - can't speak for lenny followers like yourself
”
I did also mention 'saintly persons'. I wonder why, given that you clearly knew what I'd written, you ignored it completely in preference of your above quoted nonsense.

just putting a bit of distance between lenny and god - at the very least, in th e absence of any positive assertions on what the process actually entails, the connection is untenable

“
however claims accompanied by normative descriptions require to be appraised differently (in other words practice and theory comes into play)
”
It's unclear how any of this would actually validate a claim to direct perception of space beings.

quite simply
- if I said you go and apply this discipline of knowledge to get direct perception, we have something to go on

“
so enlighten me
”
In this instance you would be the high school dropout. What would you have me do?

so you have direct perception of god's non-existence? - intriguing

“
I think you are in a muddle - i was asking about qualification, not process
”
Righty ho, how does one determine, in this instance, the man's qualification?

how would you determine if I was a qualified rocket scientist or not?

If you can't answer this, which simply refers to a minor aspect of mundane knowledge, then there is no way for you to know regarding anything greater.

“
it was a quote about the qualities of a saintly person however
”
So the qualities of a person identify that they're qualified? (So in this instance the man would be 'qualified' by virtue of being a "kind friend", "tolerant" etc etc?

there are many qualities of a saintly person, some primary and some secondary (the one's you mentioned are secondary)

“
somehow I doubt you possess the prerequisites for such a discussion to be fruitful
”
Awww please, you're hurting my feelings. Only joking, I don't mind you using me and my inability as an excuse whenever you need to.

if you insist that any meaning you can screw out of scripture be acknowledged as valid, then obviously a discussion that rests on comparitative scripture is not your forte

“
since I never spoke to him directly, my issue was dealing with how capable you are of representing me
”
Well, have some faith. Your above quote makes it seem like you want actual evidence. What is that all about?

lol - your attitude I guess

However, if it helps at all I simply printed out your posts and showed them to him so it's not about me representing you but you representing you.

then perhaps you could present why he disagreed (perhaps you shouldn't though, since I doubt you are capable of being a transparent medium of communication)

“
its no co-incidence that the answer to both questions operate on the same general principle - if you haven't got the intelligence to determine whether a scientist is qualified or not (despite apparently working in the field) it is not my problem
”
I see. I ask a question concerning saintly people to which you then bring scientists into the equation, while not answering the question, while insulting my intelligence or lack thereof.

I see
you prefer to participate in discussion bereft of analogy

Needless to say, distinguishing that a man has a degree in genetics and distinguishing that a man can actually see invisible space beings are two completely different things. You're being simply dishonest by trying to compare the two.

so if we accept your conclusion (in the absence of premises) that god is an invisible space being, you are correct

The "process" to come to direct perception of a god differs vastly from one belief to another.

really?

In the case of many christians all one must do is ask god to show himself and it will be done.

you have found credible christian practitioners that this is all one has to do? (I remember the bible having a few more pages in it than that)

So simply by asking one would therefore be 'qualified'.

unless you can back up such statements by credible christians, your argument is a strawman

People have done this and then make the claim that they do indeed have direct perception: "I asked god to show himself to me and he did".

and you are such a fool that you believed them to be credible christians?

How does one go about validating or invalidating that claim?

once again - one cannot validate or invalidate the claims of a rocket scientist, but one can validate or invalidate their credibility as a rocket scientist (ie examination of process - and from your above description of the 'process' of christianity, its obvious that you have no idea what the process is - or alternatively the christians who have educated you have no idea)

You state that one must also apply the process - which I have argued against because then you can't invalidate anything unless you have actually validated it in which case you can never invalidate anything.

in which case you had better throw 99.9 % of science and history out the window since you are not in the position to validate practically any of it

If a man came up to me, (it does happen), and says he can hear voices that order him to beat up inanimate objects you would have me believe that the only way to invalidate his claims are for me to also hear that very same voice getting me to beat up those inanimate objects, in doing so actually validating his claim.

no - because there are other processes of validation (that pertain to the field of psychology) that can determine superior causes

Surely you can see the problem with that?

so if you encountered a person who was not insane and who made positive statements about god's existence and substantialness , what then?

“
How much of what you hold on to as true and reveal is revealed to you by dint of your direct pereception and how much is revealed simply by accepting the claims of others? (have you been to the gobi desert? Have you spoken fluent latin and sanskrit? Have you peered down an electron microscope? Have you measured the levels of carbon in the south pole for the past 40 years? etc etc)
”
A common theist tactic used to try and somehow justify their completely lacking in evidence beliefs. I believe you've tried this many times with your 'you havent seen the president' speeches and yet no valid comparison can really be made. The existence of the president is evident - there is plenty of evidence to show that he does indeed exist and in saying, direct perception of the president is not an issue. The same can be said of the gobi desert, the existence of languages and so on. With claims where there is no evidence to support the claim, believing that claim to be true is simple foolishness.

you accept all these things exist because the media that represent them are held as credible by yourself - if you didn't hold them as credible (as in the case of claims of theism for yourself), you would reject them (as some people do)

“
it seems that you have no understanding of the principles of knowledge
”
The claim to my lack of understanding isn't an answer to the question, it's an excuse.

“
if you ask how can one have direct perception of a claim of knowledge without being qualified, the answer is "you can't"
”
No, for a long time now I have asked you very simply how one can validate a claim to direct perception of space beings or leprechauns etc. You started with "normative descriptions in scripture". I asked how this helped actually validate the claims to which you then waffled on about physicists and linguists and car mechanics while completely avoiding the question. You spoke of process and quality and qualification which is just a smoke screen to avoid answering one simple question that you seemingly didn't want to answer.

What we have actually come down to is that "you can't", and that was all it took. Why needlessly bore me with worthless nonsense when you could have just said "you can't" pages ago and done with it?

Of course it still leaves us with a serious problem. We can't validate or invalidate the claims of direct perception of space beings/voices in the head/leprechauns unless we also have direct perception of space beings/voices in the head/leprechauns in which case there is nothing to invalidate. This invariably puts me out of a job.

“
if you think you can validate a claim simply by trying to jump to direct perception and avoid the whole issue of qualification and process

”
I didn't say any such thing.

reread your responses to the above and tell me why they are not insistences that direct perception be revealed without qualifcation

Now, according to many religious folk the way to get direct perception of their god is simply to ask.

the issue seems to be that you don't have an education in religious practices, or you are determining religious practices from other similarly uneducated persons (ie mental patients)

That is the process.

It is?

You become qualified the instant you actually have direct perception of their god, right? That is the 'qualification' here.. they have direct perception, you don't. Now, it seems that your process to coming to direct perception differs to theirs.

what can I say - go back to basics and read scripture

How do we distinguish exactly who's claimed process is valid?

well try their process and see - you make it sound really simple - just ask - ok so now you have asked and not seen god, you can understand one of two things
1 - god is not real
2 - the 'just ask' process doesn't work

By putting ourselves through that process? And then if both processes fail to end up with a result?

both processes? what was the other one?

Does that make the process wrong, or would you continue to claim the process works and is right but that the person going through the process didn't do it sufficiently?

obviously if the process doesn't grant the result, the result is bogus or the process is bogus - since your process is absolutely nutty, I am not surprised you didn't see god (in fact if you did I would think the time had come for you to start taking your lunch on the same benches with your clients)

In which case, given that the process itself is never questioned, how do you ascertain which process is valid?

application to the process is the a huge topic - I give a few quotes here and there just to give a clue - but in short, constant introspection and questioning is involved

What you're left with are claimants who say the process worked - and now consider themselves qualified based upon a claim that you can't validate.

first find a process - not that it is always a safe guard, but finding a historic tradition usually helps - like for instance can you find a person of the 'just ask' process who was taught by another person of the 'just ask' process, who was taught from another who had success with the 'just ask' process etc etc (if by examining the tradition it is revealed to be a disciplic succession of nutcases and embezzlers, it would be safe to have some reservations ....)

Now, to rephrase all of that, let's look at the process concering Lenny the leprechaun:

One process of coming to know leprechauns has been known to man for hundreds of years.. You yourself will even be aware of this process: touch wood/knock on wood. This process has since fallen into superstition by the unqualified and the purpose of that process is largely forgotten. There are also other processes including placing a coin in front of a tree, (oak is preferable).

So: Place a coin, (any), in front of a tree. Then touch/knock on that tree and ask sincerely for a leprechaun to come and see you. Lenny requires a bit more work as he is the big cheese of leprechauns, but the process will at least allow you to get direct perception of leprechauns.

you realize here that you are diverging from your claim that "my process is the same as your process"

Now, here is the problem: If you fail to get direct perception of leprechauns after going through the process, the process cannot be faulted - only you can.

So, how do we validate the process unless we get direct perception of leprechauns and then how do you proceed to validate the claim of direct perception?

examine the faults one is expected to overcome .. or perhaps more intelligently, determine why it is that one is required to knock on wood etc (get a bit more of a theoretical foundation)

Kindly stick to the leprechaun/god issue as opposed to trying to reflect the issues found here with other, non-related, fields when you respond.

its actually a knowledge issue

“
then provided the scripture you are referring to is reliable
”
How do you determine the reliability of scripture, (or in this case the book of Lenny)?

scripture involves delineating process and also the existence of a reliable practitioner - much like say any field of knowledge involves delineating process and also the existence of a reliable practitioner (ie one who is making a claim of direct perception)

“
what you fail to understand is that processes are subject to scrutiny
”
How so? Who is the one doing the scrutinizing? It can't be the one that has not gone through that process, (the unqualified), it can't be the high school dropout - no it seems the only one that can scruitnize the process is the one that's gone through that process - and yet if he fails to end up with the claimed result by following the process it isn't the process that comes under scrutiny but the person that has gone through the process.

incorrect

the dynamic that would enable the high school drop out to understand, even if they had truckloads of misgivings about the whole thing, is the examination of the process (rather than looking at what an electron is, one would look at the general principles of physics and how one comes to the position of validating what an electron is)

So, how and who can scrutinize the process I have advocated for leprechauns? You certainly can't.

I could ask you why it is that one is required to knock on wood etc

“
so since there is no logical or material evidence for you possessing a mind I can safely say your comments are mindless?
”
You can say so by faith, (i.e you have no evidence to support what you're claiming). There is evidence, you simply haven't taken the time to look at that evidence - instead happy to just take it on faith.

well there is no material evidence for the mind - so that must make your statements mindless (by your logic of course)

“
erm - all of them
”
Cite an example.

they all do

prove me wrong by citing an example that doesn't

“
so you think in the case of the high school drop out, what is required is a better teacher?
”
A high school dropout doesn't generally drop out because he's a moron but because he has little to no interest in the subject matter. His life is filled with things that are, to him, of more use than learning or caring about some specific subject. Perhaps a better teacher might help, but then if he has no interest in the actual subject it's unlikely. In this instance on the other hand the student has interest in the subject but the teacher is failing to teach adequately. As such, yes.. a better teacher would help.

Nope - questions loaded full of bad attitude don't help
to sum it up
A-T-T-I-TU-D-E

“
so faith was cultivated at an early stage
”
Incorrect. Interest was cultivated at an early age. We're going to have problems if you cannot distinguish the difference between interest and faith.

“
if you would have had no faith in chemistry, it would be very difficult to be satisfied by making red things turn yellow or white things form bubbles
”
Incorrect. If I had no interest in chemistry, it would be very difficult to be satisfied by making red things turn yellow - thus I would end up the dopout with regards to chemistry.

Now at least we have found the source of the problem: you seem to think that interest is the same thing as faith.

interest only takes boot when one anticipates what one can do - ambition is all connected to faith
even the moment you made a red thing turn white you were at the very least cultivating faith that chemical experiments were repeatable (which is an underlying faith of most of science- except perhaps some aspects derived from quantumm physics - that the physical laws are constant and hence experiments under controlled environments are repeatable

)

“
(in other words your home chemistry set was a foundation for the contemplation of bigger things and greater ambitions - all of which were beyond your level of direct perception - hence faith)
”
Incorrect. I had an interest in chemicals and got a chemistry set which lead me to find out what certain chemicals actually did which in turn led to me gaining more evidence of what other chemicals did as a direct result of my interest in the subject matter.

“
the general progress of knowledge is applying faith to come to realizations
”
Incorrect. It's about evidence testing to come to realisations. Faith does not come to realisations, well.. it does, but simply because you say it does.

and before you come to realization, nothing is evidenced, hence faith is the dynamic that operates in hypothesis
“

or to put it in scientific terms - hypothesis to conclusion
”
'a proposal intended to explain certain facts or observations'

It isn't faith that leads to hypothesis, it is a proposal based upon facts and observations.

if it was all about facts there would be no need to perform an experiment

While the hypothesis might be inaccurate upon further investigation, the hypothesis is based upon what is known.

so where does a new hypothesis come from? Or do you argue that nothing new has entered the field of science since time immemorial?

“
for instance you have faith it is actually tea and not poison
”
Not at all. It would be faith if you believed, for no good reason, that the tea was in fact poison, but the reverse does not work. If you were to actually even consider the possibility then it would come down to the observational, (what the tea looks/smells like.. do you know the person that made the tea etc).

so assuming one didn't have one's home chemistry set at hand to confirm all this raw data, what then?

Never before in your life have you heard of the wongle dongle monster. That does not mean that for your entire life you have had faith with regards to the existence or lack thereof of the wongle dongle monster. Hopefully you'll manage to understand the reason and relevance of that statement.

your analogy would only be relevant for a person who has never heard of a beverage being poisoned

“
is it sufficient to look both ways once? twice? ten times?
”
Take into account the evidence: do you have good eyesight? Needless to say if you're blind the evidence would suggest that looking left and right is completely pointless. There is lots more evidence that will be taken into account: what kind of road is it, is your visibility clear or hindered by parked vans etc? The only faith comes in the form of walking out because you simply believe the road will be clear.

then why do people who fulfill all this criteria for safely crossing the road sometimes get hit - was their faith that it was safe to cross the road challenged?

“
before you could do that however you would have to get a degree in physics
”
Ok. What pray tell is the degree you gain that provides you with direct perception of space beings?

better you ask someone who is claiming direct perception of them

“
therefore intelligent claims of direct perception (that want to be taken as more than mere tentative claims) come packaged with a process to apply (apply a process - > become qualified)
”
In saying, the claim to direct perception of leprechauns must be one of these "intelligent claims" as it has that process. If you undergo the process but do not become "qualified" the process can't be faulted, only your ability to do it properly.

therefore if you cannot entertain intelligent inquiry into the process, the claim is not intelligent

“
and if a person does not know the first thing about physics, how is the evidence validated or invalidated
”
Put a ball at the top of a hill and it rolls down it. Every single time. And yes, that can be demonstrated to you, you need not roll it down the hill yourself. Reproduction of the claim. The problem as I've explained is that if the process doesn't work, with regards to gods and Lenny, you cannot fault the process, only the person.

so I directly perceive the ball - but when you get down to the notty gritty of physics with gravitational constants vs mass, I don't see any of that - like for instance how would you evidence the gravitational constant of a proton to someone who doesn't know the first thing about physics

“
if everything is identical then you have god
”
Or you have a leprechaun and when you say god you simply mean leprechaun..

omnipotent, omniscient, all powerful

Are we talking about the same thing?

 

[SnakeLord]

just putting a bit of distance between lenny and god - at the very least, in th e absence of any positive assertions on what the process actually entails, the connection is untenable

A) A process was given

B) The connection should be obvious. You of course seemingly prefer to try and make a comparison between gods and physics - which is ludicrous.

quite simply
- if I said you go and apply this discipline of knowledge to get direct perception, we have something to go on

It's still unclear how that would validate someone elses claim to direct perception of this space being. As I have been trying to explain, if the process gave no result it wouldn't be faulted, only the person would.

so you have direct perception of god's non-existence? - intriguing

Eh?

If you can't answer this, which simply refers to a minor aspect of mundane knowledge, then there is no way for you to know regarding anything greater.

So you have two examples - one of which is 'mundane knowledge' and one which is "greater". Why try and compare the two then?

there are many qualities of a saintly person, some primary and some secondary (the one's you mentioned are secondary)

The ones I mentioned were actually the ones you mentioned when I asked you to tell me the qualities of a saintly person which show they're qualified. So, how about you now inform me of these primary qualities?

if you insist that any meaning you can screw out of scripture be acknowledged as valid, then obviously a discussion that rests on comparitative scripture is not your forte

Sorry, where does this come from? Are we even having the same discussion?

then perhaps you could present why he disagreed (perhaps you shouldn't though, since I doubt you are capable of being a transparent medium of communication)

I'll record what he says and then get back to you.

I see
you prefer to participate in discussion bereft of analogy

Not at all, and you know that. Now you're simply being dishonest for whatever reason. You didn't answer my question, that's where the problem lies.

so if we accept your conclusion (in the absence of premises) that god is an invisible space being, you are correct

I am correct regardless to what specific words you use to identify this god of yours. You clearly know that. You can identify a man that has a degree in genetics without having to go through the process of getting a degree in genetics yourself but can't to identify a man that does have direct perception of a claimed god.

really?

Yes.

you have found credible christian practitioners that this is all one has to do? (I remember the bible having a few more pages in it than that)

How would you or I know unless we went through the process? That is your argument. And then from there we can say that even if the process fails the process can't be faulted, just your inability to do it properly.

'For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened.'

There are other pages in the bible, sure.. They speak largely of different issues.. Leviticus for example speaks of laws, Psalms is a book of.. well, psalms. Etc.

unless you can back up such statements by credible christians, your argument is a strawman

I'm sorry, "credible christians"? That is a strawman. But out of interest, who exactly decides who is or isn't a "credible" christian? Wait, don't tell me.. you do?

and you are such a fool that you believed them to be credible christians?

Hmm.. So you poorly attempt to label me a fool for no good reason without even realising the blatant contradiction in your posts? Let me sum this up..

[LG] There is a process that one must go through to be 'qualified' in order to validate the claims of direct perception

[Snake] Here is a process.. (explains a process)

[LG] That process isn't real, they're fakes, it's all bollocks (while not having gone through the process that LG also claims one must go through in order to determine the validity of that process).

[Snake] *chuckles while pointing at the serious contradiction*

[LG] You fool! Why do atheists always resort to ad hom?!!

I need not say anything from now on, I can just sit here with some popcorn watching you argue against yourself.

(ie examination of process - and from your above description of the 'process' of christianity, its obvious that you have no idea what the process is - or alternatively the christians who have educated you have no idea)

Or, as is more apparent, you feel you can just dismiss any process, (while not having gone through that process), because.. what? You've dismissed the process of millions of christians instantly without trying the process and yet tell me that I cannot do the same to you or anyone else without doing that process. You're a hypocrite of the highest order LG.

You sound like an angry high school dropout. Unwilling to try a process to come to direct perception but thinking you have the right to dismiss that process all the same.

I said: You state that one must also apply the process - which I have argued against because then you can't invalidate anything unless you have actually validated it

Once again: You stated that one must apply the process in order to validate or invalidate it. You have not done so but think you can invalidate it, call everyone else a fool and stupid and whatnot, simply because you say so. You're arguing yourself into a bottomless pit.

so if you encountered a person who was not insane and who made positive statements about god's existence and substantialness , what then?

I'd probably ask for some evidence. Or I could do an LG and dismiss the fool instantly for no apparent reason. However, needless to say, belief in gods does reside in the brain just the same as this other man's belief that he can hear voices.

you accept all these things exist because the media that represent them are held as credible by yourself

Not really, no. Media has bias, that's the way it goes - but I do know how a video camera works, and so when I see the president standing up giving a speech I know that this person exists.

reread your responses to the above and tell me why they are not insistences that direct perception be revealed without qualifcation

Go back and read your very statements in your last post and you'll see it is you, (now), insisting that you can reveal the validity or lack thereof without that qualification, without having gone through the process. Why, you just dismissed millions of christian off-hand without being qualified/having gone through the process they advocate.

the issue seems to be that you don't have an education in religious practices, or you are determining religious practices from other similarly uneducated persons (ie mental patients)

Actually I do, but I shall forgive you for your blunder. You however, are dismissing other religious practices/processes which goes against the very basis of your claims over many threads but then seemingly try to rebuke me if I even try to do the same. You're a hypocrite.

Now, all one must do is ask and they shall receive, knock and the door shall be opened. The process to getting direct perception of god is to do that. You haven't done that process and thus by your own arguments can't say anything about it.

[LG] But they're wrong, it's fake! They know nothing, only LG does and if LG says they can't, they can't!!

Don't take it too badly, there's nothing ultimately wrong with being an unqualified high school dropout. You'll survive.

what can I say - go back to basics and read scripture

Done. However it isn't of relevance. You haven't done that process, who are you other than a high school dropout to think you can dismiss it off hand because it doesn't fit in with your own personal unqualified beliefs? Well?

What you're passing on to me now, (which is the opposite of what you were doing earlier), is that I can dismiss something instantly while not having gone through that process. Make up your mind already LG, your mass of contradiction is giving me a headache.

well try their process and see - you make it sound really simple - just ask - ok so now you have asked and not seen god, you can understand one of two things
1 - god is not real
2 - the 'just ask' process doesn't work

Or 3 - you didn't do it right.

The fact remains that there are people that claim to have direct perception from undertaking this process, much like there are probably people that claim to have direct perception from undertaking whatever process it is you have yet to explain. If another person fails to come to that direct perception it isn't the process that is faulted, it's the persons ability to do it properly. Take for example.. hmm.. a physicist! Now, some student would be physicist does his study, does the process but ends up getting a G- in his exams. He will undoubtedly do an LG and claim the process is bollocks. But the process isn't, just his ability to do it properly.

Now, you haven't even tried this process and yet think you can dismiss it instantly. What is that all about? Your own arguments and statements would show that you can't do any such thing.

You then falsely assume that if you do try the process and fail that it is somehow the processes fault instead of your own, your inability to do it properly. You're the high school dropout failure blaming the coursework for that failure. It's ludicrous.

both processes? what was the other one?

Whatever process it is that you would advocate as being the process. It's clearly either LG's way or the highway but you wont tell me what that process is. The best you could muster was "normative descriptions in scripture", although that's randomely changing and adapting as this discussion goes on. Whenever I ask a question concerning it you move the goalposts.

obviously if the process doesn't grant the result, the result is bogus or the process is bogus

Oh, obviously. Yep, when LG fails it can't be LG's fault it must be the process. My wife went to make me a cup of tea. The process is a simple one: boil the kettle, put teabag in cup, pour water into cup, stir teabag, add some milk.. voila. Instead I ended up with a cup of something more closely resembling warm urine. Clearly, (and obviously lol), the process is bogus. We can't for a second even consider the possibility that the process is fine, the person undertaking that process didn't do it properly. C'mon LG, don't be silly.

since your process is absolutely nutty, I am not surprised you didn't see god

A) It's not my process, but the process as stated by many people that claim direct perception of this being - a claim which, according to you, you cannot even begin to refute unless you have gone through that process.

B) You claim the 'process is nutty' without even having done it. According to you, you can't do that.

I give a few quotes here and there just to give a clue - but in short, constant introspection and questioning is involved

But always focused on the process, not the person undertaking that process? This is what you are advocating now. Hell, you've completely change tune.. Now we can all go around claiming process are "nutty" without having even gone through that process. How is that constant 'introspection and questioning'?

first find a process - not that it is always a safe guard, but finding a historic tradition usually helps - like for instance can you find a person of the 'just ask' process who was taught by another person of the 'just ask' process, who was taught from another who had success with the 'just ask' process etc etc (if by examining the tradition it is revealed to be a disciplic succession of nutcases and embezzlers, it would be safe to have some reservations ....)

You'll find it comes from a very similar source as the teachers of whatever process you advocate. Namely: ancient people. Seemingly I should have some reservations now purely on the basis that these people were ancient and because neither of us can accurately show their sanity or lack thereof. Needless to say, I do have reservations, which is why we're having this conversation.

you realize here that you are diverging from your claim that "my process is the same as your process"

Not really, (not that it's relevant to anything). What was it you were saying about "same as any other field of knowledge"? Starts with faith, likeminded persons and so on and so forth.. This is all part of the "process" and as such is the same as yours.. "much like any other field of knowledge you'd care to mention".

'in short it begs the question why you think you can transgress the established norms of any field of knowledge you care to mention'.

Now, the actual practice differs slightly, but according to your statements the process must be the same.. for any field of knowledge you care to mention.

examine the faults one is expected to overcome .. or perhaps more intelligently, determine why it is that one is required to knock on wood etc (get a bit more of a theoretical foundation)

Ok, that is explained in normative descriptions in Lenny scripture.

So.. it includes everything you have asked for.. What now?

scripture involves delineating process and also the existence of a reliable practitioner - much like say any field of knowledge involves delineating process and also the existence of a reliable practitioner (ie one who is making a claim of direct perception)

Ok, done. What now? Oh and how do you determine the reliability of a practitioner?

the dynamic that would enable the high school drop out to understand, even if they had truckloads of misgivings about the whole thing, is the examination of the process (rather than looking at what an electron is, one would look at the general principles of physics and how one comes to the position of validating what an electron is)

You're now arguing against the very nature of this high school dropout that you have mentioned in dozens of threads.

I could ask you why it is that one is required to knock on wood etc

The same reason one would 'knock on the door' to find god.. so they can hear you're there. But inevitably wouldn't a question like this, in this kind of context come down to 'their will'? I mean, we could ask unsatisfactorily a million times why a god would want anyone to chop a bit of their penis off. The only valid answer is that it's what god wants, (or wanted). You will know more concerning these questions when you actually have direct perception -> which requires going through a certain process. If you question that process while being unqualified and not having done that process, what answer do you think you'll get that you'll ever understand?

well there is no material evidence for the mind - so that must make your statements mindless

Out of interest, is your statement made by someone unqualified or qualified? Kindly show me your qualifications regarding 'the mind'. Is it possible you're just having faith in 'the media'? This is what you said to me simply for stating that the president exists.

they all do

Cite one!

Nope - questions loaded full of bad attitude don't help
to sum it up
A-T-T-I-TU-D-E

Ah right, it's always the students fault? In saying, the reason you consider the process advocated by many christians in coming to direct perception of god as bollocks is simply because of your bad attitude? A) You haven't attempted the process, B) You erroneously think that if you did and harvested no result that the fault is on anything other than you, (i.e the process itself), and yet here state that the student, (you), is at fault due to a bad attitude. You're all over the place.

and before you come to realization, nothing is evidenced, hence faith is the dynamic that operates in hypothesis

Incorrect. Before I came to realisation of what mixing a red and blue liquid together did, I had no faith in what it would do. Ergo I did not have faith that me mixing this blue and red liquid together would result in a banana fudge sundae. I was testing to find out what it did without having any "faith" that it would actually do anything.

As for repeatability, for every day since I have been born the sun has been there. The evidence suggests that it will be there tomorrow. It might not, it might explode and turn into a floaty banjo playing turtle, but the evidence I have to go on suggests it will.

if it was all about facts there would be no need to perform an experiment

I didn't say a hypothesis was fact, I said it was based upon facts and observations. Pay attention.

so where does a new hypothesis come from? Or do you argue that nothing new has entered the field of science since time immemorial?

A new hypothesis comes as a possible explanation for facts and observations. When I light a match and put it next to paper, the paper burns.. That is observable. My hypothesis could state that this 'observed' phenomena happens due to oxygen present in paper. The reason I form this hypothesis is again based upon the observable: namely that paper comes from trees which are organic yada yada.. Now, the hypothesis itself could very well be wrong, but it is based upon the observed. I do not have 'faith' that so and so is true, I have given a possibility based upon what has been observed which is then tested to see if that hypothesis has merit. If faith was the issue, we'd just accept the hypothesis and done with it.

so assuming one didn't have one's home chemistry set at hand to confirm all this raw data, what then?

One could adopt faith and drink it regardless or throw it away regardless. Faith comes into play when you have a belief that isn't evidenced. I had no such belief that the tea was or wasn't poisoned, it didn't even enter my mind, (thus my statements about the wongle dongle monster. You have never even heard of the wongle dongle monster, no LG.. you do not have faith that the woogle monster exists or doesn't by never having considered it).

your analogy would only be relevant for a person who has never heard of a beverage being poisoned

Incorrect.

then why do people who fulfill all this criteria for safely crossing the road sometimes get hit - was their faith that it was safe to cross the road challenged?

I see the problem raises it's head again.. You are trying to fault the process as opposed to the person undertaking that process and in this instance also events beyond out control. Of course they can still get squished, but they crossed based upon the observed evidence.

better you ask someone who is claiming direct perception of them

I did that already, you told me they were talking bollocks. What now?

therefore if you cannot entertain intelligent inquiry into the process, the claim is not intelligent

Wait.. you said that intelligent claims come with a process. Now you're denying it's intelligence, even though it has a process, on the basis that an unqualified high school dropout who hasn't gone through that process thinks the process is bollocks. However, nobody is denying you, the unqualified, to make inquiry into that process. Go for it.

like for instance how would you evidence the gravitational constant of a proton to someone who doesn't know the first thing about physics

He could engage in intelligent inquiry into the process, alas he doesn't understand it - he's an unqualified high school dropout. Perhaps he just does an LG and states it's all bollocks without just cause.

omnipotent, omniscient, all powerful

Oh, you meant that specific version of a god. No, leprechauns are not those things. What now? Tell me LG, will you apply the process I have advocated?

 

[Medicine*Woman]

There are many non-born-again people in Christendom.

*************
M*W: There are no "born agains" anywhere! If that were the case, I'd be making double the money. What does being "born again" in your case mean?

 

[IceAgeCivilizations]

If you used to be a Christian, Med Woman, then you should have known that scripture, it's the cornerstone of Christianity, so perhaps you never really were a Christian.

 

[Yorda]

christians hallucinate about jesus and god. atheists hallucinate that jesus and god don't exist.

 

[IceAgeCivilizations]

And you hallucinate that one of them might be right?

 

[Yorda]

both christians and atheists are right because the universe is imagination.

believing is seeing. so if you don't believe in god, that is your reality.
but it's not reality for those who believe in god.

 

[lightgigantic]

Snakelord

“
so you have direct perception of god's non-existence? - intriguing
”
Eh?

you said that in this instance (regarding atheism) I would be the high school drop out - that must make you the person with direct perception - intriguing ....

“
If you can't answer this, which simply refers to a minor aspect of mundane knowledge, then there is no way for you to know regarding anything greater.
”
So you have two examples - one of which is 'mundane knowledge' and one which is "greater". Why try and compare the two then?

because they both operate on the same general principle - surely you have heard of analogies before

“
there are many qualities of a saintly person, some primary and some secondary (the one's you mentioned are secondary)
”
The ones I mentioned were actually the ones you mentioned when I asked you to tell me the qualities of a saintly person which show they're qualified. So, how about you now inform me of these primary qualities?

surrendered to god is a good one to begin with

“
so if we accept your conclusion (in the absence of premises) that god is an invisible space being, you are correct
”
I am correct regardless to what specific words you use to identify this god of yours.

ahhh - so you do you have direct perception regarding god's non-existence - intriguing .....

You clearly know that. You can identify a man that has a degree in genetics without having to go through the process of getting a degree in genetics yourself but can't to identify a man that does have direct perception of a claimed god.

what makes you say that?

“
you have found credible christian practitioners that this is all one has to do? (I remember the bible having a few more pages in it than that)
”
How would you or I know unless we went through the process?

I never encountered a credible christian who says all you have to do to get god to reveal himself is ask

That is your argument. And then from there we can say that even if the process fails the process can't be faulted, just your inability to do it properly.

but according to your insistence all you have to do is ask - my point is that no christian will tell you that is all you have to do

'For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened.'

There are other pages in the bible, sure.. They speak largely of different issues.. Leviticus for example speaks of laws, Psalms is a book of.. well, psalms. Etc.

I guess the next issue would be sincerity - certainly seems to be what credible christians confirm too

“
unless you can back up such statements by credible christians, your argument is a strawman
”
I'm sorry, "credible christians"? That is a strawman. But out of interest, who exactly decides who is or isn't a "credible" christian? Wait, don't tell me.. you do?

for a start ones that can offer philosophical reasoning behind practices

“
and you are such a fool that you believed them to be credible christians?
”
Hmm.. So you poorly attempt to label me a fool for no good reason without even realising the blatant contradiction in your posts? Let me sum this up..

[LG] There is a process that one must go through to be 'qualified' in order to validate the claims of direct perception

[Snake] Here is a process.. (explains a process)

[LG] That process isn't real, they're fakes, it's all bollocks (while not having gone through the process that LG also claims one must go through in order to determine the validity of that process).

the reason the process is foolish is because any fool can determine that it doesn't work - at the very least you will not find such foolishness in any of the philosophical treatises associated with christianity

[Snake] *chuckles while pointing at the serious contradiction*

[LG] You fool! Why do atheists always resort to ad hom?!!

I need not say anything from now on, I can just sit here with some popcorn watching you argue against yourself.

I didn't say you were a fool therefore you are wrong - I was saying that the process is wrong and if you seriously accept it or consider it to be the summit of theological presentations you are fool (unless you can reference it to credible christian practitioners)

“
(ie examination of process - and from your above description of the 'process' of christianity, its obvious that you have no idea what the process is - or alternatively the christians who have educated you have no idea)
”
Or, as is more apparent, you feel you can just dismiss any process, (while not having gone through that process),

there's nothing to go through with the process - just ask - if that is all there is to it, and there is no question of the qualification of the person doing the asking, what else is there to examine in the process?

because.. what? You've dismissed the process of millions of christians instantly without trying the process and yet tell me that I cannot do the same to you or anyone else without doing that process. You're a hypocrite of the highest order LG.

lol- millions of christians?
and which prominent christian advocated the "jusr ask" process (bereft of qualification)?
I didn't write off christianity
I wrote off your strawman version of it

You sound like an angry high school dropout. Unwilling to try a process to come to direct perception but thinking you have the right to dismiss that process all the same.

One can do your process in less than 2 seconds - hence it only appeals to the foolish

“
I said: You state that one must also apply the process - which I have argued against because then you can't invalidate anything unless you have actually validated it
”
Once again: You stated that one must apply the process in order to validate or invalidate it. You have not done so but think you can invalidate it, call everyone else a fool and stupid and whatnot, simply because you say so. You're arguing yourself into a bottomless pit.

I did however mention that the process can be examined
since your process is not particularly complicated, and also since it is not backed up by any philosophy, it can be easily disregarded

“
so if you encountered a person who was not insane and who made positive statements about god's existence and substantialness , what then?
”
I'd probably ask for some evidence. Or I could do an LG and dismiss the fool instantly for no apparent reason. However, needless to say, belief in gods does reside in the brain just the same as this other man's belief that he can hear voices.

so what do you make of physicists or rocket scientists then, since you are probably not qualified to either validate or invalidate their evidences?

“
you accept all these things exist because the media that represent them are held as credible by yourself
”
Not really, no. Media has bias, that's the way it goes - but I do know how a video camera works, and so when I see the president standing up giving a speech I know that this person exists.

so you have faith that the news is non fiction and that the cinema is fiction - hence its media based (after all, they both use the exact same technology - actually they have better technology in the film industry since there is more money in it)

“
reread your responses to the above and tell me why they are not insistences that direct perception be revealed without qualifcation
”
Go back and read your very statements in your last post and you'll see it is you, (now), insisting that you can reveal the validity or lack thereof without that qualification, without having gone through the process. Why, you just dismissed millions of christian off-hand without being qualified/having gone through the process they advocate.

millions of christians?
You are yet to provide a single example within the writings of christianity of one who abides and promotes the "just ask" process (without it mattering an iota how qualified you are - just flap your lips and it will be done - if this is what you seriously consider to be th e process advocated by christianity its understandable why you are an atheist).

Just to set you straight - direct perception cannot be validated without qualification, but the process can be analyzed to determine credibility - that is why your (atheistic) version of christianity can be rejected

“
the issue seems to be that you don't have an education in religious practices, or you are determining religious practices from other similarly uneducated persons (ie mental patients)
”
Actually I do, but I shall forgive you for your blunder. You however, are dismissing other religious practices/processes which goes against the very basis of your claims over many threads but then seemingly try to rebuke me if I even try to do the same. You're a hypocrite.

then if you received an education in the field it should be easy for you to quote the historical emergence of the "just ask" process, referencing various christian philosophers and theologicians who have confirmed this (all though it beats me what there would be to write about if all that was required was to "just ask" and issues of qualification, purity, sin, sincerity etc were irrelevant)

Now, all one must do is ask and they shall receive, knock and the door shall be opened. The process to getting direct perception of god is to do that. You haven't done that process and thus by your own arguments can't say anything about it.

thats your process - you have to understand that as an atheist, your interpretation of scripture, at the very least, runs the risk of diverging from the understanding and practices of theists - you may claim that this is all one has to do, but unless you can also illustrate how this is firmly advocated by theists too, then you run the risk of appearing foolish

[LG] But they're wrong, it's fake! They know nothing, only LG does and if LG says they can't, they can't!!

I never asked you to take my word for it - I asked you to take the word of a practitioner in the field of christianity and back your statements up with historical reference- as it stands at the moment, we have about 2000 years of christian writing on one side of the scales and the strawman argument of a disgruntled atheist on the other - who do you think bears more weight?

Don't take it too badly, there's nothing ultimately wrong with being an unqualified high school dropout. You'll survive.

your concern is touching

“
what can I say - go back to basics and read scripture
”
Done. However it isn't of relevance. You haven't done that process, who are you other than a high school dropout to think you can dismiss it off hand because it doesn't fit in with your own personal unqualified beliefs? Well?

it was a reccomendation for you to re-examine your own qualifications - at the very least your version of christianity doesn't tally with Anselm, Tertullian, Origen, Saint Augustine, Thomas Acquinas or even CS Lewis or Pope John Paul - apart from you, who else is a firm advocate of the "just ask" process as the be all and end all of christianity?

What you're passing on to me now, (which is the opposite of what you were doing earlier), is that I can dismiss something instantly while not having gone through that process. Make up your mind already LG, your mass of contradiction is giving me a headache.

the reason it can be dismissed instantly is for two reasons
there is no evidence of this process being backed up by persons who are held of credible in the field of investigating scriptural practices (you have to admit that your investigation of scriptural practices, as an anonymous atheist, is not particularly credible)
one can apply the process instantly

“
well try their process and see - you make it sound really simple - just ask - ok so now you have asked and not seen god, you can understand one of two things
1 - god is not real
2 - the 'just ask' process doesn't work
”
Or 3 - you didn't do it right.

but you stated previously there was no question of qualification for your version of the "just ask" process

The fact remains that there are people that claim to have direct perception from undertaking this process, much like there are probably people that claim to have direct perception from undertaking whatever process it is you have yet to explain. If another person fails to come to that direct perception it isn't the process that is faulted, it's the persons ability to do it properly. Take for example.. hmm.. a physicist! Now, some student would be physicist does his study, does the process but ends up getting a G- in his exams. He will undoubtedly do an LG and claim the process is bollocks. But the process isn't, just his ability to do it properly.

if you conceded earlier that there is more to the process of "just asking" that hinges on qualification there would have been no need for this discussion

Now, you haven't even tried this process and yet think you can dismiss it instantly.

previously you were adamant that all one had to do was ask - now it seems that you are admitting that the process is not so simple

What is that all about? Your own arguments and statements would show that you can't do any such thing.

maybe its time for you to redefine what your process exactly is rather than hiding behind two opposing statements to suit your argument
Does the "just ask" process involve any question of qualification, or does it simply require that one asks god to reveal himself and it will be done instantly, regardless of who or what one is?

“
both processes? what was the other one?
”
Whatever process it is that you would advocate as being the process. It's clearly either LG's way or the highway but you wont tell me what that process is. The best you could muster was "normative descriptions in scripture", although that's randomely changing and adapting as this discussion goes on. Whenever I ask a question concerning it you move the goalposts.

I am describing things generally - it seems that you are failing to understand normative descriptions in scripture, since you come up with crazy interpretations of scripture that don't at all appear normative according to the body of work that surrounds christianity.

“
obviously if the process doesn't grant the result, the result is bogus or the process is bogus
”
Oh, obviously. Yep, when LG fails it can't be LG's fault it must be the process. My wife went to make me a cup of tea. The process is a simple one: boil the kettle, put teabag in cup, pour water into cup, stir teabag, add some milk.. voila. Instead I ended up with a cup of something more closely resembling warm urine. Clearly, (and obviously lol), the process is bogus. We can't for a second even consider the possibility that the process is fine, the person undertaking that process didn't do it properly. C'mon LG, don't be silly.

if a person fails (and the process is correct) its because they mess up on the process - in the case of your wife, she didn't use the "tea" process but used the "urine" process, thus the expectation to get tea from the urine process is a failure of the 'urine' process (unless one is wanting to get tea that tastes like urine)

“
since your process is absolutely nutty, I am not surprised you didn't see god
”
A) It's not my process, but the process as stated by many people that claim direct perception of this being - a claim which, according to you, you cannot even begin to refute unless you have gone through that process.

you've had ample opportunity to back up your claims - we are after names (preferably ones associated with christian theology and not accounts of your workplace encounters) not numbers

B) You claim the 'process is nutty' without even having done it. According to you, you can't do that.

according to your process, anyone can do it in two seconds

“
I give a few quotes here and there just to give a clue - but in short, constant introspection and questioning is involved
”

But always focused on the process, not the person undertaking that process?

introspection doesn't mean focusing on the person?

This is what you are advocating now.

I did?

Hell, you've completely change tune..

I have?

Now we can all go around claiming process are "nutty" without having even gone through that process. How is that constant 'introspection and questioning'?

maybe you could establish why it takes longer than two seconds to apply your "just ask" process

“
first find a process - not that it is always a safe guard, but finding a historic tradition usually helps - like for instance can you find a person of the 'just ask' process who was taught by another person of the 'just ask' process, who was taught from another who had success with the 'just ask' process etc etc (if by examining the tradition it is revealed to be a disciplic succession of nutcases and embezzlers, it would be safe to have some reservations ....)
”
You'll find it comes from a very similar source as the teachers of whatever process you advocate. Namely: ancient people.

ok name one

Seemingly I should have some reservations now purely on the basis that these people were ancient and because neither of us can accurately show their sanity or lack thereof. Needless to say, I do have reservations, which is why we're having this conversation.

if there is a gap of a thousand or so years in your investigations, its another cause for reservation

“
you realize here that you are diverging from your claim that "my process is the same as your process"
”
Not really, (not that it's relevant to anything). What was it you were saying about "same as any other field of knowledge"? Starts with faith, likeminded persons and so on and so forth.. This is all part of the "process" and as such is the same as yours.. "much like any other field of knowledge you'd care to mention".

your process is ritual - mine is not

'in short it begs the question why you think you can transgress the established norms of any field of knowledge you care to mention'.

Now, the actual practice differs slightly, but according to your statements the process must be the same.. for any field of knowledge you care to mention.

the process of knowledge is the same
for instance you are giving me theory about the practice of seeing leprechauns
if you think that simply because you are giving theoretical knowledge, all theoretical knowledge is identical, it is another reason to suspect you of acting like a fool

“
examine the faults one is expected to overcome .. or perhaps more intelligently, determine why it is that one is required to knock on wood etc (get a bit more of a theoretical foundation)
”
Ok, that is explained in normative descriptions in Lenny scripture.

So.. it includes everything you have asked for.. What now?

then I guess one would investigate it further in that direction

“
scripture involves delineating process and also the existence of a reliable practitioner - much like say any field of knowledge involves delineating process and also the existence of a reliable practitioner (ie one who is making a claim of direct perception)
”
Ok, done. What now? Oh and how do you determine the reliability of a practitioner?

if you have knowledge without someone advocating direct perception, obviously it won't go further than theory

“
the dynamic that would enable the high school drop out to understand, even if they had truckloads of misgivings about the whole thing, is the examination of the process (rather than looking at what an electron is, one would look at the general principles of physics and how one comes to the position of validating what an electron is)
”
You're now arguing against the very nature of this high school dropout that you have mentioned in dozens of threads.

of course it is the nature of the high school drop out to remain one, but if he is not to remain one, this is the most likely path he would have to take

“
I could ask you why it is that one is required to knock on wood etc
”
The same reason one would 'knock on the door' to find god.. so they can hear you're there.

once again, without a credible reference in the field of christianity (apart from "millions" and "ancient people") you seem to be standing by yourself (or perhaps in the snug association of your atheist buddies) when you say such things

But inevitably wouldn't a question like this, in this kind of context come down to 'their will'? I mean, we could ask unsatisfactorily a million times why a god would want anyone to chop a bit of their penis off. The only valid answer is that it's what god wants, (or wanted). You will know more concerning these questions when you actually have direct perception -> which requires going through a certain process. If you question that process while being unqualified and not having done that process, what answer do you think you'll get that you'll ever understand?

then why insist on knocking on wood or doing anything in particular if it all boils down to will (seems like we can also reject your "just ask" process in that case as well, since its all will - hence there is no process to apply at all)
“

well there is no material evidence for the mind - so that must make your statements mindless
”
Out of interest, is your statement made by someone unqualified or qualified?

qualified
if there is a scientist in the field who has come through with the chemical make up for the mind, you could be the first to break it to the world right here on sciforums

Kindly show me your qualifications regarding 'the mind'. Is it possible you're just having faith in 'the media'? This is what you said to me simply for stating that the president exists.

Unlike you, I don't pose the argument that for anything to be true I must directly perceive it

so where does a new hypothesis come from? Or do you argue that nothing new has entered the field of science since time immemorial?
”
A new hypothesis comes as a possible explanation for facts and observations. When I light a match and put it next to paper, the paper burns.. That is observable. My hypothesis could state that this 'observed' phenomena happens due to oxygen present in paper. The reason I form this hypothesis is again based upon the observable: namely that paper comes from trees which are organic yada yada.. Now, the hypothesis itself could very well be wrong, but it is based upon the observed. I do not have 'faith' that so and so is true, I have given a possibility based upon what has been observed which is then tested to see if that hypothesis has merit. If faith was the issue, we'd just accept the hypothesis and done with it.

so you have faith that the physical laws are constant and hence enable experiments to be repeatable

“
so assuming one didn't have one's home chemistry set at hand to confirm all this raw data, what then?
”
One could adopt faith and drink it regardless or throw it away regardless. Faith comes into play when you have a belief that isn't evidenced. I had no such belief that the tea was or wasn't poisoned, it didn't even enter my mind, (thus my statements about the wongle dongle monster. You have never even heard of the wongle dongle monster, no LG.. you do not have faith that the woogle monster exists or doesn't by never having considered it).

precisely - one's normal faith would dictate the action - in this case drinking the tea

“
then why do people who fulfill all this criteria for safely crossing the road sometimes get hit - was their faith that it was safe to cross the road challenged?
”
I see the problem raises it's head again.. You are trying to fault the process as opposed to the person undertaking that process and in this instance also events beyond out control. Of course they can still get squished, but they crossed based upon the observed evidence.

actually the problem is that you cannot detect the inextricable link between inductive knowledge and faith

“
better you ask someone who is claiming direct perception of them
”
I did that already, you told me they were talking bollocks. What now?

just as I suspected - you didn't speak to a saintly person after all

“
therefore if you cannot entertain intelligent inquiry into the process, the claim is not intelligent
”
Wait.. you said that intelligent claims come with a process. Now you're denying it's intelligence, even though it has a process, on the basis that an unqualified high school dropout who hasn't gone through that process thinks the process is bollocks. However, nobody is denying you, the unqualified, to make inquiry into that process. Go for it.

If you apply the process and it doesn't work and if it cannot be answered why the process didn't work then obviously you have no room for further progress

“
like for instance how would you evidence the gravitational constant of a proton to someone who doesn't know the first thing about physics
”
He could engage in intelligent inquiry into the process, alas he doesn't understand it - he's an unqualified high school dropout. Perhaps he just does an LG and states it's all bollocks without just cause.

seems you are making progress - in case you haven't noticed inquiry into the process is the standard method for teaching the gravitational constant of a proton

“
omnipotent, omniscient, all powerful
”
Oh, you meant that specific version of a god. No, leprechauns are not those things. What now? Tell me LG, will you apply the process I have advocated?

so you not only have a different body of theoretical knowledge and a different body of practical knowledge but also a different body of value based knowledge - what does this tend to indicate?

 

[Sarkus]

LG - I think you have a different understanding of "faith" to Snakelord.
"Faith" in crossing the road safely is based on a vast amount of evidence - and is a subconcious assessment of probability.
There is no "faith" that the physical laws are the same - it is merely an assumption made.
If experiments do not go as planned then either the testing was flawed or the assumptions were flawed - in which case the assumptions are examined again - in either case it is not a matter of faith - it is just not considered.

"Faith" in God is based on no evidence at all that is not merely a misinterpretation.


Further - your examples concerning "qualification" are flawed: the rocket scientist can demonstrate to the "unqualified" whether or not the circuit board is in the correct place by switching on the rocket and seeing it work.

Where is the evidence of the "qualification" in your process?

There is none - for your process only the "qualified" can assess "qualification".

When I go to the doctors - he demonstrates his qualification through curing my ailments.
There is no analogy for your process - otherwise please demonstrate the evidence I can see of "qualification" - without myself needing to be "qualified".

If the person needs to be "qualified" to assess "qualification" then the process is, as always stated, circular and akin to brainwashing: "If you Believe you shall believe".