Do you believe in God?

[Famine]

Can you at least see how humans and apes did not evolve from each other? That they came from a common ancestor (now long extinct) and that common ancestor branched off in two different directions?

Of course he can't.

 

[Denur]

Well He didn't need to, because He was telling the disciples of these things that "must" happen.
You only reading the sentence, and not the entire verse, of what Jesus was explaining to them.
By saying this generation, He was referring to "that" generation, that will see all these things happen together.
Quite obvious, because there has been no Rapture since.

I have read the context:

24 And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple.

2 And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.

3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?

4 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you.

5 For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.

6 And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet.

7 For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places.

8 All these are the beginning of sorrows.

9 Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake.

10 And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another.

11 And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.

12 And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.

13 But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.

14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand

16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:

17 Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house:

18 Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes.

19 And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days!

20 But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day:

21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.

22 And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.

23 Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not.

24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.

25 Behold, I have told you before.

26 Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not.

27 For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

28 For wheresoever the carcase is, there will the eagles be gathered together.

29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:

30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

32 Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh:

33 So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors.

34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

36 But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.

Right up to the bolded part He addresses His disciples directly. From all this text it can only be clear that He is talking to His disciples about their own generation. You think that because the Rapture has not happened, that He must be talking about a future generation. I think that this is merely an indication that the entire prophecy is bollocks. Also, if the Rapture were to happen many centuries later, why would He not have said so? Why didn't He say: But do not fear my friends, many generations will come to pass, before the End of Days. But that would be a terrible script, and none would be bothered with His teachings.

 

[Scaff]

So then what happens when you read, "we must love our enemies, and pray for those that persecute us"?
Is there is contradiction? By mixing with unbelievers, I'm not following the path of the unbelievers.
If anything, I'm telling unbelievers that there is One option that they haven't tried, Christ.
If they say they have, then I don't have much else to say to them, except, was their hearts right at the time.
Only they would truly know that.

You can preach to someone or pray for them without joining together with them (which is what yoked together means), a point that is either lost on you or you are deliberately ignoring.

If this were a site that you could post comments on without joining as a member and agreeing to be bound by specific, non-Christian, rules you might have a point. However its not, and as such the Bible quite clearly states that you are not allowed to do so , after all this....

"Come out from them and be separate, says the Lord. Touch no unclean thing, and I will receive you."

....is not exactly being vague about it.

Also. with your website posted, are you now forcing me to accept what it says, else I'm violating the rules? Mark of the beast is here already...

Which website?

If you mean the rule here at GT Planet, then yes you accept them or you are violating the rules.

If you mean the link to the explanation of Scientific Theory, then no I am not forcing you to accept them, I'm using it as a source that helps explain what the scientific method is and how it relates to Scientific Theory.

What about the one that says science is to observe and test? Must I just believe that science is right because "they" have facts about origins, by their standards? Do you go by their laws and rules always?

Science doesn't care if you believe in it or not, that is an irrelevance. That we share a common ancestor with Apes doesn't require belief at all, its supported by such an overwhelming body of evidence that it actually carries more proof to support it (and by quite some margin) that gravity does.

Does gravity require belief?

Simple. No one was there to know what happened so long and far away. It's just best guess, based on scientific data.
The flood is another possible guess, and I choose the flood. Everyone can choose which one suits them best.
Before I came to know the Lord, billions of years was my accepted view.

One of which is supported by a body of scientific evidence that has been repeated, reviewed and subject to falsifiability and the other is supported by a story, a story that is stolen from an older religion.

One is not just best guess, the other is an act of plagiary.

You can chose to believe one over the other, but don't try and claim that from the point of evidence they are even close to being comparable.

 

[dylansan]

@DCP you already admitted you couldn't explain how evolution has been able to make many predictions of discovered fossils, etc. It only makes sense that we can predict them because the theory is accurately describing the process, otherwise it couldn't predict anything.

 

[Scaff]

@DCP you already admitted you couldn't explain how evolution has been able to make many predictions of discovered fossils, etc. It only makes sense that we can predict them because the theory is accurately describing the process, otherwise it couldn't predict anything.

Satan did it and if you say anything different then Satan made you say that as well.

 

[Famine]

Satan did it and if you say anything different then Satan made you say that as well.

But Satan didn't write the Bible because the Bible says Satan can't do that.

 

[Scaff]

But Satan didn't write the Bible because the Bible says Satan can't do that.

Says Satan.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Of course you do.Actually it was "for no reason at all". It's not a shocker to see that you're heading off on your own tangent with your own definition of words and language, but mildly tedious that you're misquoting something that you already actually quoted...

The full sentence, of course, was "No rational person simply refuses to learn more for no reason at all." -

Whether he concluded there was a reason, or he assumed no reason.
Either way is still the same result.
There are multiple solid reasons for argument to the contrary.
Presenting a case for something is not being close minded, but rather providing for the establishment of that something.

and that's because no rational person ever gets to the point where they are unwilling to learn more, because no rational person ever believes that they know everything already.

I agree.

You have decided to shut down your mind to the possibility that you are wrong and you are unwilling to take in any information that contradicts your position without trying to squash it into your predetermined conclusion. This is the very definition of closed-minded.

My mind is not closed.
And my conclusions are anything but predetermined.
Rather they are established in, and by, my own personal, testable, observable and repeatable results.
And backed up by an innumerable amount of other persons who get the same results.
Now as I said if you can establish, not speculate upon, an alternate result, then be my guest.
However the only way you can actually do that is through the undertaking of the same experiment and observe a different or falsifiable result.

and that's because no rational person ever gets to the point where they are unwilling to learn more, because no rational person ever believes that they know everything already.

Do you really believe that?

 

[Famine]

Whether he concluded there was a reason, or he assumed no reason.
Either way is still the same result.

No, because the sentence didn't mean what you are pretending it means.

My mind is not closed.

You will not admit the possibility that you can be wrong. There is no test that you can think of that would prove you wrong - not least of which because you are unwilling to even contemplate thinking of a test.

This is the literal definition of closed-minded.

And my conclusions are anything but predetermined.
Rather they are established in, and by, my own personal, testable, observable and repeatable results.

We've asked for the methods for these tests. You will not give them. This means that your tests cannot be repeated.

And backed up by an innumerable amount of other persons who get the same results.

Who else has performed your tests and why will you share the methods with them and not us?

Now as I said if you can establish, not speculate upon, an alternate result, then be my guest.
However the only way you can actually do that is through the undertaking of the same experiment and observe a different or falsifiable result.

You're claiming to have tested a non-falsifiable premise...

Do you really believe that?

No - I don't believe anything.

However it is not rational to believe that you know everything. Therefore this is not a characteristic of someone who is rational.

 

[dylansan]

[a quote about being unwilling to learn more.]

I agree.

[the exact same quote.]

Do you really believe that?

Can you explain this? I don't follow.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I'm interested in the answer to @dylansan's question, you seem to quote @Famine twice and say two different things about the same quote.

Rather they are established in, and by, my own personal, testable, observable and repeatable results.
And backed up by an innumerable amount of other persons who get the same results.

So what is the test, how do we observe it, and are the other people who you've discussed positive results with performing the same quantifiable test?

 

[GBO Possum]

Now if someone can show legitimate results, evidence, etc. to disprove my findings that would constitute alternative reality, further scrutiny maybe advisable.
Thus far, however nothing has scratched the surface.

Maybe if you published your "findings", with the actual proof, then there'd be a chance of "disproving".

 

[doctorrg]

I'm not sure about all of this, but there is a possible relatable element of note.
The trinity is made up of God the Father(heavenly) Jesus Christ the son, and the Holy Spirit.
They are all considered for practical purposes, the representation of God or authoritatively the same.
But they are three distinctively different entities.
However, these distinctions are somewhat vague in as far as explanations given.
In reality a person accepts Jesus Christ and then as a result of that process, one recieves the Holy Spirit.
And this single avenue is plainly stated as the only way to God or right standing with God the Father.
When I say I know God, it is through this connection and the specific entities that are structurally appointed and involved.
Perhaps this has some relation to your explanation.

It's too early in the day, SuperCobraJet, I haven't even started citing scripture yet. I fear if I were to address this any further at this point it would only produce more noise in this thread, so my apologies, but I will not be addressing this (just yet).

What are you saying here exactly and why is it all about acceptance?

I was just answering a question that Imari had asked, concering me personally, there isn't any more to it.

Now we're getting somewhere.

That's certainly a good start.

I've not run across Kant's definition of Noumena before, so my knowledge of it is what I read on Wikipedia today. It seems fairly comprehensive, but I hope you'll educate me if it seems that my understanding of it is imperfect.

Basically, as far as I can tell, Kant seems to say that noumena are the quote unquote real things, and that what we perceive/think about are concepts in our brains that have been derived from observations of phenomena that originated with those noumena. Because we can never perceive noumena directly (whatever that means), our understanding of the true nature of the object, the noumenon, will always be imperfect.

Can't say I've read the Wikipedia article, but I would say it's not quite right to say that our understanding of true nature will always be imperfect, it would be more appropriate to say that we'll always only understand nature as it is to us, we'll never be able to understand nature-in-itself.

This is the sort of idea that is both staggeringly brilliant and entirely trivial.

What makes it most brilliant is that he came up with it some time in the 1700's. By the standards of the day, which to my awareness still thought of the universe as largely mechanistic and deterministic, this was a radical thought.

However, fast forward to modern times and it's entirely trivial, for reasons which I will explain. Even without being specifically taught this concept of noumena, you will find that a modern scientist or student of science will have a very similar concept. Our current understanding of perception and observation does not allow much else.

Our understanding of biology teaches us that our "self" is either to be found in our brains or somewhere downstream of it, if you wish to subscribe to souls or other such things. Upstream can be thought of as the senses, feeding information to the brain. We know that our senses take stimulation and convert that into electrical impulses that are then sent to our brain where they are perceived.

With this knowledge, it becomes pretty obvious that nothing can be perceived directly. All we ever do is take readings off the "instruments" that come as standard with our bodies.

Further, the advance of quantum physics has actually defined limits on how much information can be known about any single system. There are pairs of physical properties that cannot both be defined to below a certain accuracy, the most well known being position and momentum. If you define a particle's position to high accuracy, then you have a very low accuracy in the definition of the particle's momentum, and vice versa.

As such, someone with a reasonable knowledge of modern science would naturally come to the conclusion that an observer does not observe the true object, but merely the product of interactions with his senses. And also that there are actual hard limits on what can be known about any given object, and that while we can get very accurate models predicting how certain things will behave we are never describing the "true" object, the noumenon, merely a simplified concept of it that happens to correspond very well to real behaviour.

Nothing here I'd have to disagree with.

So to bring it back to God, the question was why is God unknowable?

Noumena are unknowable in an absolute sense, but we accept that.

Yes, but do you accept the consequences?

I have to go a little further back in order to better explain this, in particular, to our beloved Solipsism. Personally, I'd consider Solipsism to be fundamentally true and fundamentally meaningless. Yet, the fact that I consider it meaningless does not at all change that it is fundamentally true. In other words, there exists absolutely no rationale by which Solipsism can be proven false.

But now we've got a dilemma. There's no way around the truth, but what we know to be true is essentially meaningless to us. So, how are we going to get around this dilemma?

Simple. We take a leap of Faith!

We assert the existence of what we've now addressed as noumenal reality, and go on with our lives. Now, all of a sudden, we can talk about things with meaning. But let's not forget what we had to do in order to get there. We don't really know (in an absolute sense) whether or not noumenal reality even exists, we need it to exist in order to give what we experience meaning.

So, instead of not knowing whether there is anything out there, beyond what we consider to be our Phenomenal world, we now know that there is something out there, something we simply don't know anything about, but something that gives rise to our Phenomenal world.

But let's continue.

We still learn a lot about their behaviour by observing the phenomena that they produce, which is why we know quite a bit about molecules and orbits and that ice cream melts if you leave it in the sun, even though the absolute reality of "what is a molecule" or "what is Venus" will always be unknown. It is, as far as we know, impossible to absolutely define every aspect of something in the way that the classical physicists might have imagined.

It is, of course, a very similar situation here. There is absolutely no rationale by which we'd be able to make any judgement about noumenal reality, and that's irrespective of how much we may believe we know of Phenomenal reality. Noumenal reality in itself is a construct we have created in order to assign meaning to the Phenomenal world, because without noumenal reality, our Phenomenal world is utterly meaningless.

Based on what we currently know (having accepted the existence of Noumenal reality), whatever we may come to know about our Phenomenal world has absolutely no bearing with respect to knowledge of noumenal reality. This is fundamentally true. In other words, there exists absolutely no rationale by which it could be proven that what we know about Phenemenal reality would tell us anything, anything at all, about Noumenal reality.

But now we've got another dilemma. It is undesireable that all that we've come to know would not be able to tell us a thing, not even the smallest thing, about reality-in-itself. Where's the meaning in that?

Question is, are you up for another leap of Faith?

Do you want phenomenal reality to be able to tell us more about Noumenal reality? Or have you already taken that leap of Faith?

I'm willing to accept that there are also noumena that do not produce phenomena, and those are completely unknowable to us.

And that doesn't even matter.

You can tinker around with them as a mental exercise, but if they do not produce any phenomena there's no way to learn any more or check your ideas. On the other hand, they don't affect us either (because they don't do anything perceptible by a human) so it's really not that important.

But, and this is the big but, as far as I can tell you accept that God produces phenomena. That the God "experience" is one that is produced by phenomena. Tell me if I'm wrong, but that's my understanding of your position.

You're wrong. Naturally, what I've said previously was, in essence, a very simplistic representation of my position as I found it to be contextually relevant. But, we've now dug a little deeper, so let me try and put this a different way.

All we really have is the phenomenal world. This is true, there's just no way around it. We really don't know whether Noumena exist at all. But, we need Noumena in order to assign meaning to our Phenomenal world, so, we assert noumenal reality exists. In reality, though, Noumena is nothing but a concept we have created, we don't really know (in an absolute sense), nor ever will, whether Noumena really exist. The concept of Noumena itself is a phenomenal entity. By the same logic, we don't really know, nor ever will, whether God really exists. We have no other choice but to take a leap of Faith.

So, for anyone who takes this leap of faith, instead of not having anything beyond what we perceive and understand, we now have something, simply something we can't know anything about. By definition, mind you.

Remember, in essence, it's a mere concept.

But, let me address what you've said. I'm now moving back into a context where I've taken that leap of faith and have asserted that noumenal reality exists. I'll try to put this into a language that is better suited to your question, though.

As for "God produces Phenomena", I don't think "produces" is the right word here, but I'd agree that there is a reality-in-itself that is perceived and understood by us. As for, [anything] "is produced by phenomena", that simply is categorically wrong, and most certainly no part of my position. Any interaction happens entirely within noumenal reality, Phenomenal reality merely is how we perceive and understand it all.

If so, then that puts God in the first category, of noumena that generate phenomena. As such, we have just as much ability to learn about God as we do of learning about the puppy next door, or an extra-solar planet, or a black hole. We'll never know the true reality of these noumena either, but we can observe the phenomena that they produce and refine our mental models of how they behave.

I've only taken one leap of Faith, do you want me to take another?

Remember, Noumena, in essense, is nothing but a concept, a concept we've created in order to assign meaning to our phenomenal world.

Do you see why I'm confused by your statement that God is unknowable?

Oddly enough, yes, I can see why you're confused.

If God is a noumenon that does not produce phenomena, then it doesn't matter. We shouldn't care, because things that don't produce phenomena by definition do not affect us.

If God is a noumenon that does produce phenomena, then we should be able to learn more about Him in the same way that we've learned about all other noumena that produce phenomena. Namely, the scientific method.

Just to interject here, and use the (to me inappropriate) word "produce", God most definitely produces Phenomena, just to make that clear. I am in no way saying that God would occupy a region of Noumena (to use this even more inappropriate language) that does not produce Phenomena.

We may not ever know the whole truth about Him, but we'll never know the whole truth about anything and any modern scientist is totally aware of this. As such, when I advocate learning more about God using the scientific method, I'm merely advocating doing exactly the same thing that we do with any other noumenon that we would like to refine our understanding of.

Well, I hope you have a slightly better understanding of the phrase "God is unknowable" now, and that you see that it in no way contradicts that we can observe people while they're experiencing God.

As I've said previously, there's your angle.

P.S. This is a difficult topic, and I've tried to be as clear as possible about what I mean, but no doubt somewhere I've failed to do so. Please just ask if I've not made what I mean clear to you.

It is a difficult topic, no doubt. I too hope that I have understood what you've meant to ask and have been able to address at least some of your questions. Until next time.

 

[Imari]

Well, I hope you have a slightly better understanding of the phrase "God is unknowable" now, and that you see that it in no way contradicts that we can observe people while they're experiencing God.

Well, considering that it's an entirely worthless statement when it's not accompanied by "...exactly the same as everything else", I don't see why you bothered. If everything is unknowable then there's no information given in making the statement that one particular thing is. God is exactly as unknowable as my cat.

Still, at least we found that there's one theist who accepts that the scientific method can be used to learn more about God.

 

[doctorrg]

Well, considering that it's an entirely worthless statement when it's not accompanied by "...exactly the same as everything else", I don't see why you bothered. If everything is unknowable then there's no information given in making the statement that one particular thing is. God is exactly as unknowable as my cat.

After all I've just said, why'd you think this would be a sensible statement? God has no direct representation in our phenomenal world, your cat does. Or did you mean to say your cat-in-itself (which wouldn't be anything you could sensibly call cat)?

Edit: I feel like I need to expand on this a little more, just so that there is no misunderstanding. Your cat can be perceived through our five senses, and can be understood in our meaning of the term. The same is not true for God. God can neither be perceived through our five senses, nor understood in the same way we understand a cat. You do see the fundamental difference here, right? And you do see why the statement "God is exactly as unknowable as my cat" does not really make much sense, right?

Still, at least we found that there's one theist who accepts that the scientific method can be used to learn more about God.

Who?

 

[LeMansAid]

Well it was a fun read for me. My thanks to you two for a nice change from the usual trash.

I'm reminded to prompt on a promised follow up. @Dotini had at one point described God as an inhuman trickster - to which I asked if we could possibly recognise a truly inhuman trick - crucially, different to a trick merely not performed by a human. In all likelihood, animals, and other things that we do and don't know of, are tricksters. Thing is, if we can/could recognise them as such, it's not inhuman. But maybe we have been duped by God and somehow know it, but not in the way that we usually know things. What if it's the same as I mentioned with being in "the zone"? As soon as it's confronted by our "normal" selves, it's gone, or can't be known.

I love the image of the colour wheel that spins white. For me it's a metaphor that represents the idea that a person with perfect and complete knowledge (full colour range) would be essentially the same as the person who has a perfect abandonment, and has erased themselves (white).

 

[SuperCobraJet]

And how do know that it really is the Holy Spirit and not again the Devil in disguise?

Because they are diametric opposites and operate from the opposing ends of the spiritual spectrum.
And from where they originate as to the perception of.

Didn't realize so many of the moderators and people on here were Agnostic, Atheist or Realists..

No mistaking it at this point is it?

No, because the sentence didn't mean what you are pretending it means.

I wasn't pretending.
It only has one of two logical interpretations that I can see.
Then what other interpretation is there?

You will not admit the possibility that you can be wrong. There is no test that you can think of that would prove you wrong - not least of which because you are unwilling to even contemplate thinking of a test.

Even if there were a test I could think of, unless it exists in a substantive applicable form, then it's irrelevant anyway.

This is the literal definition of closed-minded.

In reality you are confusing close-mindedness with inability to establish substantive support to overcome, again an experimental standard of result common to an innumerous body of individuals.
That is not close-minded on their side, but insufficiency on your side.
Which in reality is assumption of close-minded, not establishment of it.

We've asked for the methods for these tests. You will not give them.

That is totally false.
Back to excuses again.
I've given them repeatedly and of recent given the tools needed.
Again for a brief synopsis, "read the New Testament and follow the instructions given."

This means that your tests cannot be repeated.

Totally false again.
They can be repeated from one individual to another, assuming that each individual follows the the instructions.

Who else has performed your tests and why will you share the methods with them and not us?

All born again, spirit filled Christians, that I know of.
We share methods but more importantly, results.
See below.

You're claiming to have tested a non-falsifiable premise...

No and yes.
No, as far as physically non falsifiable.
But in reality, yes as to spiritually verifiable.

No - I don't believe anything.

I would like for you to explain to me how that is possible in the operative, functioning sense?


The following is completely pointless, unless you believe it.

However it is not rational to believe that you know everything. Therefore this is not a characteristic of someone who is rational.

Further, I'm not claiming to know everything, just about this particular process.

Can you explain this? I don't follow.

I'm interested in the answer to
@dylansan's question, you seem to quote @Famine twice and say two different things about the same quote.

I agreed with it, but then I also asked him if he really believed it.
Or in other words does he believe it is only applicable to me, or is it in reality applicable to him as well.

So what is the test, how do we observe it, and are the other people who you've discussed positive results with performing the same quantifiable test?

The test and experiment is, the acceptance and profession from the heart by faith or belief on Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior for forgiveness of sins and the subsequent baptism(reciept of) of the Holy Spirit.

Upon completion, the commonality of result should be apparent.
I would add that at that point you are a baby (new born spiritually) in Christ and will require some maturity or developement to understand more in depth spiritual concepts just as when you were physically young and required maturity unto understanding of mature concepts.
Retesting of communication and confirming of spiritual things continues on from the initial test.

 

[Scaff]

That is totally false.
Back to excuses again.
I've given them repeatedly and of recent given the tools needed.
Again for a brief synopsis, "read the New Testament and follow the instructions given."

I have. I did.

It didn't work.

 

[Denur]

Because they are diametric opposites and operate from the opposing ends of the spiritual spectrum.

Huh? How do you know which is what? How do you know you got it by the "right" end?

And from where they originate as to the perception of.

What?

Please speak English. I expect you are trying to explain something to me here, so please use a common language. Or is your answer just "I don't know" and you're trying to hide that by using some made-up language?

 

[Famine]

I wasn't pretending.

You certainly were. That's why you changed the words and then bolded them - despite having quoted them.

It only has one of two logical interpretations that I can see.
Then what other interpretation is there?

Whatever interpretation you draw from what you thought it said and then changed the words to say is not relevant. I already told you what the original, unedited sentence means.

Even if there were a test I could think of, unless it exists in a substantive applicable form, then it's irrelevant anyway.

Precisely. You can neither think of a test (because what you're testing is non-falsifiable - though that's not your fault) nor would you be willing to. Closed mind.

In reality you are confusing close-mindedness with inability to establish substantive support to overcome, again an experimental standard of result common to an innumerous body of individuals.
That is not close-minded on their side, but insufficiency on your side.
Which in reality is assumption of close-minded, not establishment of it.

Nope. You are unwilling to think of a test to prove yourself wrong. This is the definition of closed-minded.

That is totally false.
Back to excuses again.
I've given them repeatedly and of recent given the tools needed.
Again for a brief synopsis, "read the New Testament and follow the instructions given."

Totally false again.
They can be repeated from one individual to another, assuming that each individual follows the the instructions.

Unfortunately that method is garbled. There are hundreds of versions of the New Testament, each with different phrasing and interpretations. It's also incomplete.

Please list the instructions step by step that you followed so that others may exactly recreate your process in order to repeat your results.

All born again, spirit filled Christians, that I know of.
We share methods but more importantly, results.
See below.

Are you suggesting that everyone who has achieved your result of acquiring knowledge of an individual deity has done so by following a precise process from a state of not believing in that deity?

No and yes.
No, as far as physically non falsifiable.
But in reality, yes as to spiritually verifiable.

Yeah, that last sentence is meaningless.

You cannot falsify God. The innate properties of God mean that he cannot be proven to be false and no test can be created that will prove the falseness of God - physically or "spiritually" (whatever that means).

You're claiming you have a precise method for non-believers to follow that, despite the non-falsifiability of God, will inevitably lead them to the knowledge of God. You still won't share it - you just wave your hand dismissively and suggest that everyone should read the New Testament and follow the instructions in it that differ from one book to the next.

State your process, from the starting conditions of the test, step by step to enlightenment. We do it for everything else we know - and thanks to that process we have you hammering words beyond recognition on the internet - so why not God?

I would like for you to explain to me how that is possible in the operative, functioning sense?

You've been told hundreds of times in this thread already, so stop pretending otherwise.

The following is completely pointless, unless you believe it.

Nope - because belief is fundamentally not rational. You've been told this before too.

Further, I'm not claiming to know everything, just about this particular process.

This particular process that you will not share and which leads to knowledge of the non-falsifiable.

No part of that is rational.

 

[Imari]

Your cat can be perceived through our five senses, and can be understood in our meaning of the term. The same is not true for God.

Which you've still failed to justify. Why is God different to my cat, and how do you know this?

God can neither be perceived through our five senses...

How do you know? We know that he produces phenomena that can be, which is exactly the same way that I perceive my cat.

...nor understood in the same way we understand a cat.

How do you know?

You're making these statements, justify them. You've posted massive walls of text that are basically elaborate diversions, because they simplify to "all noumena are fundamentally unknowable, but we can refine our concepts of them through observation of related phenomena. But God is different because."

You do see the fundamental difference here, right?

No, I don't. You've provided nothing to make me think that God should be treated fundamentally differently than my cat, or a planet, or gravity. If anything, as far as I can tell your arguments reinforce that he should be treated the same way, but at the last minute you spin around and say "but God is different".

I mean, how can you agree that God can be learned about by observing the phenomena he produces, and then object to me pointing out that this is the same way I learn about my cat?

P.S. You should probably know that there are a lot more than 5 senses.

 

[doctorrg]

Which you've still failed to justify. Why is God different to my cat, and how do you know this?

Surely, you jest? Have you not been reading any of what I've been writing?

Or do you simply pretend to be dense on purpose now?

God does not exist in our Phenomal world the same way a cat does. This has been explained in detail. If you still do not understand this, I'm sorry to say, it's you, not me.

How do you know? We know that he produces phenomena that can be, which is exactly the same way that I perceive my cat.

What a load of nonsense. If you had been reading what I've been writing, particularly with respect to the God experience, you'd know that the only Phenoma related to God are the Phenoma of the human being having said experience. A cat actually exists within our Phenomenal world directly. It can be perceived through our senses. I've been extremely clear that the experience of God is a purely internal process, so please don't pretend this is otherwise.

How do you know?

You're making these statements, justify them.

You're not for real, or are you?

You've posted massive walls of text that are basically elaborate diversions, because they simplify to "all noumena are fundamentally unknowable, but we can refine our concepts of them through observation of related phenomena. But God is different because."

Maybe if you would have read these "massive walls of text" you'd actually know this by now.

No, I don't. You've provided nothing to make me think that God should be treated fundamentally differently than my cat, or a planet, or gravity. If anything, as far as I can tell your arguments reinforce that he should be treated the same way, but at the last minute you spin around and say "but God is different".

Last minute? In my very first reference to the God experience, and long before I posted all these "massive walls of text", I've clearly described the God experience as a purely internal process. Remember, when you made that silly comment about one's face in the mirror? Even back then I was very clear about this all, so please don't pretend this is otherwise.

I mean, how can you agree that God can be learned about by observing the phenomena he produces, and then object to me pointing out that this is the same way I learn about my cat?

Have you completely lost the plot now? I've never agreed that God can be learned about by observing the phenomena he produces. I was quite clear on that too. The only phenomenal aspect that's even a glimpse of God is the one you'd be able to observe looking at a human being having the God experience. In case you've got a really bad memory, that's something I've said from the very beginning. But don't take my word for it, go back and read it again. It's right there where I say that all you'll have will be brain patterns in the person having the experience. That's all you'll get in terms of "godly" phenomena. And yes, that's completely different for a cat. A cat exists within phenomenal reality directly.

P.S. You should probably know that there are a lot more than 5 senses.

Point taken, I've (over-)simplified.

Surely, you can't possibly not understand this. Or are you really telling me you're still not getting it?

Edit: Something just dawned on me... concerning:

If God is a noumenon that does produce phenomena, then we should be able to learn more about Him in the same way that we've learned about all other noumena that produce phenomena. Namely, the scientific method.

When I agreed with God producing Phenomena, you didn't think I was saying God exists within the phenomenal world just like a cat does, or did you? If so, that most certainly would have been a last minute change, as it's entirely different from what I've said before. So if I misunderstood you here, and agreed with the wrong thing, my apologies. God produces Phenomena exactly in the sense that was detailed on every other occasion.

Again, what can be observed with respect to God is the effect of the God experience in a human being. Nothing else.

I really didn't think this could have possibly been unclear still.

 

[Imari]

Surely, you jest? Have you not been reading any of what I've been writing?

Or do you simply pretend to be dense on purpose now?

God does not exist in our Phenomal world the same way a cat does. This has been explained in detail. If you still do not understand this, I'm sorry to say, it's you, not me.

No, because you went into all that detail to outline that the cat does not exist in the phenomenal world either. All "real" objects are noumena, and all that exists in the phenomenal world is the phenomena that they generate.

If you're going to use the noumena/phenomena idea, at least be consistent about it.

What a load of nonsense. If you had been reading what I've been writing, particularly with respect to the God experience, you'd know that the only Phenoma related to God are the Phenoma of the human being having said experience. A cat actually exists within our Phenomenal world directly. It can be perceived through our senses. I've been extremely clear that the experience of God is a purely internal process, so please don't pretend this is otherwise.

The cat is a noumenon. It produces phenomena, the same as God.

Maybe if you would have read these "massive walls of text" you'd actually know this by now.

I read them, and it would seem that I've understood Kant differently than you have. Everything is a noumenon. Not just God, or whatever other thing you'd like to apply it to.

Last minute? In my very first reference to the God experience, and long before I posted all these "massive walls of text", I've clearly described the God experience as a purely internal process. Remember, when you made that silly comment about one's face in the mirror? Even back then I was very clear about this all, so please don't pretend this is otherwise.

Except that "purely internal" doesn't mean anything. Something is perceived, and in the Solipsist view of the world everything other than the self is external. So you're contradicting yourself. You're very clear that God produces some sort of phenomena, so I choose to accept that and that the phenomena are perceived in whatever way that they happen to be perceived.

If you want to add on this "purely internal" thing, you're going to have to describe how that's different from "normal" perception. Make sure to include how you know this.

The only phenomenal aspect that's even a glimpse of God is the one you'd be able to observe looking at a human being having the God experience.

Or by being the human having the God experience, in which case the perception is no different from my perception of a cat.

Why are you stuck on having to observe a third party witnessing a phenomenon, when you can witness the phenomenon directly? Why would I have someone else look at a comet when I could go look at it myself?

In case you've got a really bad memory, that's something I've said from the very beginning. But don't take my word for it, go back and read it again. It's right there where I say that all you'll have will be brain patterns in the person having the experience. That's all you'll get in terms of "godly" phenomena. And yes, that's completely different for a cat. A cat exists within phenomenal reality directly.

A cat is a noumenon. I'll keep saying it until you understand how noumena work. If you think a cat is not a noumenon, then you're going to have to explain your concept of noumena because it's different to Kant's.

Surely, you can't possibly not understand this. Or are you really telling me you're still not getting it?

I don't understand how you're reaching your conclusions, because your idea of what constitutes a phenomena and a noumena are totally different to the Kantian idea, as far as I can tell. So how about you stop fobbing me off to Google, stop assuming that what you think is so obvious and spell it out in clear logic.

Here, I'll do what I can for my part.

Phenomena are produced by noumena.
Phenomena can be observed.
Noumena can not be observed.
The properties of phenomena are related to the properties of the noumena that produced them.
The self exists.
The self can observe.
Therefore, the self can infer some properties of noumena by observing related phenomena.

A cat is as much a noumena as God. I cannot observe the cat directly, I can observe the electrical impulse produced by my eyes as they were impacted by light which interacted with the surface of the cat. I can observe the electrical impulse produced by the vibrations of my ear caused by the air that was expelled from the cat noumena.

If you want to take it a step further, the light and air are noumena also. I can't know that they exist. I infer them from certain properties of perceptions that I receive, and so find it useful to have such things to describe noumena that are further down the causal chain.

Ultimately, you end up as a solipsist brain in a jar who can only witness phenomena that are presented directly. In our case, mostly as a series of electrical impulses that we then interpret, although there may be other means of perception also. Anything beyond that is a constructed reality of noumena. We don't know that we have eyes, or ears, or a sense of balance, all we know is that there is a self and that there is information being fed to it that makes pretty good sense when interpreted in certain ways.

I thought this was where you were going with the noumena and solipsist ideas, but obviously I was wrong. You're going to have to try again, because I don't get it.

Whatever phenomena God ends up producing, it ends up being fed to the self just like any other. Hence why I don't understand how you're defining a cat-produced phenomenon as different from a God-produced phenomenon.

 

[Manasseh257NSX]

No mistaking it at this point is it?

Nope, I'm a little sad about that too if we're being honest.

 

[20832]

Nope, I'm a little sad about that too if we're being honest.

And how is that a problem exactly?

 

[Manasseh257NSX]

And how is that a problem exactly?

Never said it was a problem, just bums me out a little bit that majority people on here are Realists/Atheists since me being a Christian.

 

[Carbonox]

Never said it was a problem, just bums me out a little bit that majority people on here are Realists/Atheists since me being a Christian.

Welcome to the real world, where things don't always go like you want.

 

[20832]

Never said it was a problem, just bums me out a little bit that majority people on here are Realists/Atheists since me being a Christian.

Yeah, but why exactly? Because they haven't found "the true path" yet? If I'd be sad about someone not having the same views on the world as I do, then I'd be constantly sad.

 

[Manasseh257NSX]

Yeah, but why exactly? Because they haven't found "the true path" yet? If I'd be sad about someone not having the same views on the world as I do, then I'd be constantly sad.

I'm sad because I didn't know it was such a large number. I'm not gonna sit here and preach to you to believe my faith, it's just the number and majority of people caught me by surprise really and I was hoping a little more people would believe what I believe. But, that's life. You win some you lose some, you move on.

Welcome to the real world, where things don't always go like you want.

Glad to be here. but I actually woke up to this at the age of 16. The number of people just caught me by surprise. Me being shocked/sad is more of a heat of the moment type thing.

 

[20832]

I'm sad because I didn't know it was such a large number. I'm not gonna sit here and preach to you to believe my faith, it's just the number and majority of people caught me by surprise really and I was hoping a little more people would believe what I believe. But, that's life. You win some you lose some, you move on.

Especially the numbers of believers here in Germany, or at least members in churches, has gone down drastically in the last few years.