Do you believe in God?

[Denur]

The same way a person learns to tell if a bill is counterfeit.
They become completely familiarized with genuine article.

You'll first have to be certain what the genuine article is. You can't know that, only its Creator does. And He is the very one we're trying to be certain that it's genuine. That's going in circles.

 

[Imari]

I can see why you're confused, but as I've said previously, it's you, not me.

Says the guy who, by his own admission, has read the Wikipedia article on it yesterday, or was it the day before yesterday? I've been debating Kant for decades, so please don't give me this nonsense.

I invite everyone to study Kant, hell, I even invite everyone to read his Critique of Pure Reason, but please don't pretend you know a thing because you've just had a look at the Wikipedia article. Who do you think you are?

Are you seriously telling me that this isn't exactly what I've been doing?

You really didn't read a thing, or did you? Maybe if you would have bothered to read these "walls of text". But I guess that was asked for too much.

Sigh.

I'm out.

I was hoping that I could learn something, because you've clearly at least put more thought in your position than the usual "but the Bible says it so it must be true". But you lack the empathy and ability to explain your position to someone who doesn't think exactly like you do.

If someone fails to understand when you explain to them, it may not be their fault. It may be because you've explained it badly, but that seems to have escaped you. I've been trying to get my head around what is as best a fairly complex idea, and you're doing nothing to help me try and understand. You're too busy appealing to your own authority and waving your e-willy around.

But whatever. I'm not going to learn anything here. And you're not going to learn anything from me, because you've already made up your mind as to what your conclusion is. So this is a waste of my time.

Don't bother replying, you're on my ignore list. Consider next time that your ability to explain your ideas may not be as good as your ability to come up with ideas. If an idea can't be communicated clearly, it's not worth much at all.

 

[Danoff]

God cannot be observed, God can only be experienced through your very self.

That's an observation. Perception is observation. Any perception of what you label as "God" is an observation. The reason you can only experience "God" through introspection is because god does not exist independently of your perception (otherwise others could have the same observation you do). Things that don't exist independently of your perception are known by many names (thoughts, dreams, hallucinations, fantasy, imagination).

Edit:

The way that human beings distinguish fact from fantasy is by verifying that other human beings can observe the same phenomenon. Without that, it's difficult to tell a hallucination from reality.

 

[doctorrg]

I'm out.

I was hoping that I could learn something, because you've clearly at least put more thought in your position than the usual "but the Bible says it so it must be true". But you lack the empathy and ability to explain your position to someone who doesn't think exactly like you do.

If someone fails to understand when you explain to them, it may not be their fault. It may be because you've explained it badly, but that seems to have escaped you. I've been trying to get my head around what is as best a fairly complex idea, and you're doing nothing to help me try and understand. You're too busy appealing to your own authority and waving your e-willy around.

But whatever. I'm not going to learn anything here. And you're not going to learn anything from me, because you've already made up your mind as to what your conclusion is. So this is a waste of my time.

Don't bother replying, you're on my ignore list. Consider next time that your ability to explain your ideas may not be as good as your ability to come up with ideas. If an idea can't be communicated clearly, it's not worth much at all.

Hypocrite.

That's an observation.

You need to read the whole account:

God can only be known through introspection (of sorts). You experience God by, in a sense, transcending your phenomenal self. By being what you really (in an absolute sense) are, devoid of perception and understanding. Naturally, as soon as you are trying to understand your experience, you are automatically back within the realm of phenomenal reality. You will have, in a sense, already lost the experience. The experience itself cannot be observed by the person having the experience. Yet, while a person is having such experience, the person can still be observed by a third party.

There is no information gained during the experience by the person having the experience, only after the experience has already ended. After, information can only be gained from residual effects of the experience.

Perception is observation. Any perception of what you label as "God" is an observation.

You've read the account above and you'd say the person having the experience observes "God" during the experience? Or can only a person observing the person having the experience make an observation during the experience? That, of course, was a major disagreement I had in my argument with Imari. So, what do you say?

The reason you can only experience "God" through introspection is because god does not exist independently of your perception (otherwise others could have the same observation you do).

Completely agree (not with "perception", but that has been previously addressed, so I reply to the essential meaning, not as it is written). As such, "God" is fundamentally different from a cat. Would you agree?

Things that don't exist independently of your perception are known by many names (thoughts, dreams, hallucinations, fantasy, imagination).

Nothing I'd have to disagree with here.

Edit:

The way that human beings distinguish fact from fantasy is by verifying that other human beings can observe the same phenomenon. Without that, it's difficult to tell a hallucination from reality.

There's nothing here I'd disagree with either.

[Edit] A few unneccessary snippets have been removed and a clarifying statement has been added. And fixed quotes.

 

[DCP]

I have read the context:

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.

Put yourself in the disciples positions.
After that conversation, did anything happen to alarm the disciples? No.
What did they do? They continued preaching the message of Jesus, and died doing it. Either way, they still got Raptured, along with every other Believer since. That was the whole point, so that people would rest assured, knowing that Jesus would return for them, and sure enough. they would see Jesus in heaven.

We are the generation that will actually see Jesus return to Jerusalem as He says. That's the major difference which you miss out on. I've said it many times before, if you possess a Godless heart, why would you want to understand anything God says through His word, and even His Spirit?

Also note, that Jesus told them the temple will be destroyed, and sure enough, in 70 AD it happened.
Again, a Godless mind won't comprehend that. It just won't work. A man cannot serve both God and mammon.
The disciples would have known that from previous prophecies, Israel would need to become a nation again, and re-claim the temple. It didn't happen in their life time, so obviously they would have known it wasn't their generation.

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.




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.



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?


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.

Again, a Godless mind cannot understand the word in Spirit.
Jesus said "I am the door". What does that mean to you?

Yes, gravity does require belief. No one knows what it is. It's just guessing, like everything else they not sure about.

Do you believe that "something" started the big bang?

I have. I did.

It didn't work.

It won't, if you have other agendas in your heart, other then wanting to know God.
I had that same issue for 30 years, until I truly put aside the material things my heart desired.
Man cannot serve God and mammon.
As a man thinketh in his heart, so is he.
"For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.

There is no way you can experience the Presence of the Lord, if you have not let go with the things you desire, that are placed ahead God. It goes against commandments 1 and 2.
If you have already broke commandments 1 and 2, how can you possibly come to know the Lord?

I've noticed that you still haven't grasped the concept that Jesus removed the law of which the Jews were under in the Old testament, by not understanding the verse in Matthew 5:17

Let me try helping you again:

Matthew 11:13
"For all the prophets and the Law prophesied until John.

Romans 10:4
For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.

Galatians 3:23
But before faith came, we "were" kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed. 24. Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith.…

Ephesians 2:15
by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace

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

That's in prophecy near the end times:

And because lawlessness will abound, the love of many will grow cold.

Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons

For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions.

But understand this, that in the last days there will come times of difficulty. For people will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, heartless, unappeasable, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not loving good, treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having the appearance of godliness, but denying its power. Avoid such people. ...

1. Here are some logical reasonable clues for the beginning of sorrows:
   
   http://www.unhcr.org/558193896.html (wars and rumors of wars)
   
   
   http://www.timeslive.co.za/africa/20...South-Sudan-UN
   http://www.usnews.com/news/world/art...lled-in-unrest (killing thinking they offer a service to their gods)
   
   http://www.irishtimes.com/news/envir...ange-1.2255864 (Problems on the earth getting worse)
   
   http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...cientists.html (Well, it was written 2000 years ago, but thanks for the reminder)

I just get that funny feeling that people sitting comfortably at home playing games, see an improvement in mans way of living on earth. Unsurprisingly. God saw it differently, and took the time to warn us and prepare us.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Also note, that Jesus told them the temple will be destroyed, and sure enough, in 70 AD it happened.

The rest of the rubbish you posted aside; this was told by Mark, no? The earliest that this gospel was written was 70ACE. Wow, quite some foresight. Unless you refer to Matthew's gospel (80ACE).

You can't use these after-the-fact originally-Greek texts to claim contemporary foresight on the part of your messiah, more than anything it demonstrates how little understanding you actually have of the texts that you base your worship on.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

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

That was interpretation of the statement, not pretenting.
Again there are only one of two meanings.
Assumption of "no reason" or reason by saying, (not)for no reason.
As far as reality, it makes absolutely no difference which it is.

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

No that is not the definition, but rather an extrapolation on the definition.
However not necessarily wholly unapplicable as well.
Here are two good points of view on this from both sides of the debate:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/axp/2012/05/15/closed-minded-the-phrase-that-loses-every-argument/

http://www.thoughtfulchristianity.net/?p=312

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

Thats totally irrelevant unless the main points are completely contradictory.
Doctrinal differences, or points of view exist within the main point framework,
It is absolutely complete, as far as "a need to know basis", which is the same basic structure of all learning.

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?

Yes that is exactly what I am suggesting, and further claiming.

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).

That is true in the physical and the spiritual.
I am claiming the God of the Bible is spiritually verifiable.
And that is actually his claim.
I am just testifying to the fact that his claim is testable and again verifiable.
Or in other words he will back it up.

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.

Again in reality, it is his method, not mine.
I just put his method to the test and found, it is again, just as advertised.

Perhaps you can specifically point out what differences are you are referring too?

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?You've been told hundreds of times in this thread already, so stop pretending otherwise.Nope - because belief is fundamentally not rational. You've been told this before too.This particular process that you will not share and which leads to knowledge of the non-falsifiable.

No part of that is rational.

Since again it is not my process but his, it is only logical and rational to refer you to the textbook I used which contains the method I used.
What is it about that you can't understand?

Belief is absolutely fundamental as well as rational.
There is no reality in the physical or spiritual without it.

In fact your statement :

No - I don't believe anything.

is a profession of belief.
Although, obviously you do not seem to realize it.
And it is a belief due to the fact, all analytical conclusions of perception are "beliefs".
In "reality" that is an inescapable condition.
And in fact the only, only, only, did I mention only, building block of all reality.
This has already been detailed from every angle.
"Knowing" is nothing more than a "belief", consistently reinforced with observable(perceptional) repeatability.
So when I say I know the God of the Bible, guess what?
That is based in the same.
Consistent reinforced observable(perceptional) repeatability.

 

[Famine]

That was interpretation of the statement, not pretenting.

No, you bolded three words that didn't appear in the original quote and pretended that they did.

You said that @Imari claimed that no-one refuses to learn more without a reason - and bolded "without a reason". That was not what was said or claimed. You deliberately truncated the quote to remove it from context and then changed the words to mean something else.

And there's only one reason to do that.

No that is not the definition

Yes it is.

To close one's mind is to refuse to accept new knowledge. Since knowledge is acquired through a process of falsification, it's the refusal to accept that you can be wrong.

You will not think of a test that can prove you to be wrong.

Thats totally irrelevant unless the main points are completely contradictory.

Not really. We saw just a few weeks ago in the Islam thread how the wording of one sentence changes the meaning utterly between different versions.

And that was one sentence that a member was trying to use to show he doesn't need to learn anything - when other versions of the same sentence meant other things entirely.

Wars have been fought over this - and you're suggesting it's irrelevant

Yes that is exactly what I am suggesting, and further claiming.

Then in your world, no-one who has been brought up as a Christian and never wavered from that path is a real Christian, as they have never acquired the knowledge of God that you have.

That is true in the physical and the spiritual.
I am claiming the God of the Bible is spiritually verifiable.
And that is actually his claim.
I am just testifying to the fact that his claim is testable and again verifiable.
Or in other words he will back it up.

But it's not falsifiable. You literally just agreed with that.

If it cannot be proven wrong - if no test possibly exists which it can be proven false - it cannot be proven right either. So again you just disagreed with yourself.

Again in reality, it is his method, not mine.
I just put his method to the test and found, it is again, just as advertised.

But you won't tell anyone else what it is.

State your process, from the starting conditions of the test, step by step to enlightenment.

Perhaps you can specifically point out what differences are you are referring too?

You said that the method (that you still aren't sharing) includes reading the New Testament. The New Testament varies depending on which version of the New Testament you read. These would be the differences - how do I know which New Testament is the right one? You won't even share that.

Since again it is not my process but his, it is only logical and rational to refer you to the textbook I used which contains the method I used.
What is it about that you can't understand?

That "textbook" does not contain any such step-by-step process to enlightenment.

State your process, from the starting conditions of the test, step by step to enlightenment.

Belief is absolutely fundamental as well as rational.
There is no reality in the physical or spiritual without it.

According to your belief system...

Do you not see how circular that is?

In fact your statement :

is a profession of belief.
Although, obviously you do not seem to realize it.

It's only a belief according to your belief system.

Not believing is not a belief. Believing - either in or against - is a belief.

You believe otherwise and you are trying to force your beliefs onto others.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

I did.

I do however find it interesting that you think you know better than I what I have gone through, what my actions were and what the result was.

Stunningly arrogant.

Sorry, thats one of God's requirements and I have no control over it.

No, you bolded three words that didn't appear in the original quote and pretended that they did.

You said that @Imari claimed that no-one refuses to learn more without a reason - and bolded "without a reason". That was not what was said or claimed. You deliberately truncated the quote to remove it from context and then changed the words to mean something else.

And there's only one reason to do that.Yes it is.

Talk about circular?

To close one's mind is to refuse to accept new knowledge. Since knowledge is acquired through a process of falsification, it's the refusal to accept that you can be wrong.

Nevermind.

You will not think of a test that can prove you to be wrong.Not really. We saw just a few weeks ago in the Islam thread how the wording of one sentence changes the meaning utterly between different versions.

And that was one sentence that a member was trying to use to show he doesn't need to learn anything - when other versions of the same sentence meant other things entirely.

Wars have been fought over this - and you're suggesting it's irrelevant Then in your world, no-one who has been brought up as a Christian and never wavered from that path is a real Christian, as they have never acquired the knowledge of God that you have.
But it's not falsifiable. You literally just agreed with that.

My points here have nothing to do with Islam, so sorry it is still irrelevant.

Wars have been fought over any number of things, so again thats irrelevant as well.

Being a Christian is undeniably and unquestionably, a personal decision, and must be made by each individual regardless of other influences.

Perhaps we have mixed terminology here, so I will clarify again.
Physically God is nonfalsifiable, which is consistent with his claim.
He does claim however that the physical realm testifies of him.
Although he has claimed at a few points in time to have taken on physical form, he resides in the realm of the spiritual.
His claim is consistent with that, particularly proceeding the era of Jesus' generation.
Further he claims he is percievable(knowable) through the spiritual rebirth(spiritually) of a person through trust in Jesus Christ.
My claim is that as a person who has untertaken that process it is 100%, absolutely, verifiably, in reality, true.
And BTW, I fully realize you have no concept of the spiritual, That's readily apparent.

State your process, from the starting conditions of the test, step by step to enlightenment.You said that the method (that you still aren't sharing) includes reading the New Testament. The New Testament varies depending on which version of the New Testament you read. These would be the differences - how do I know which New Testament is the right one? You won't even share that.That "textbook" does not contain any such step-by-step process to enlightenment.

Well since from all indication you are a Brit, any one of the King James versions should suffice.
And BTW to repeat once again, it is not my process but God's.
If you don't mind, please make every effort possible to acknowledge that from here on out.

Do you not see how circular that is?It's only a belief according to your belief system.

Not believing is not a belief. Believing - either in or against - is a belief.

You believe otherwise and you are trying to force your beliefs onto others.

First there is no "my belief system", there is only "the reality".
And I'm sorry but I'm not forcing anything.
I am however detailing "the reality" logically and rationally.
After that, it is solely up to analytical perception to differentiate.
If you prefer to halt the probe of that particular detail, it's OK by me.
Although, it seems somewhat futile to discuss this subject with that exclusion.

 

[Famine]

Talk about circular?

What's circular about that?

You deliberately removed a quote from its context and then changed the words so it was no longer the original quote or intent and then proceeded to tell a member what he meant by what you said he'd said when he had said something else.

The only reason to do that is to purposefully mislead. Or lie, as we call it in the land where words are used properly.

Nevermind.

And now you won't admit that you won't admit that you could be wrong

My points here have nothing to do with Islam, so sorry it is still irrelevant.

Neither does the quote. It was merely in the Islam thread and it was a Christian trying to validate his ignorance with a quote from the Bible. Click on the link and this much would become patently obvious - as obvious as it is that you didn't even bother.

Wars have been fought over any number of things, so again thats irrelevant as well.

Yeah...

How on Earth can wars being fought over the differences in different Bibles be relevant to the fact that the differences in different Bibles are enough to cause conflict? I can't even imagine.

Perhaps we have mixed terminology here

Yes, you do.

Physically God is nonfalsifiable, which is consistent with his claim.

A claim that is itself non-falsifiable...

He does claim however that the physical realm testifies of him.

Which is irrelevant if he is "physically" non-falsifiable.

Although he has claimed at a few points in time to have taken on physical form

Which is itself non-falsifiable.

he resides in the realm of the spiritual

Which is babbling horsecrap and... non-falsifiable.

His claim is consistent with that, particularly proceeding the era of Jesus' generation.

His claim - and the claim of Jesus to be his son (and him at the same time) - is non-falsifiable.

Further he claims he is percievable(knowable) through the spiritual rebirth(spiritually) of a person through trust in Jesus Christ.

Which is non-falsifiable.

My claim is that as a person who has untertaken that process it is 100%, absolutely, verifiably, in reality, true.

And that is also non-falsifiable.

And BTW, I fully realize you have no concept of the spiritual, That's readily apparent.

And you have absolutely no concept of the English language, which is apparent from every post you make where you mutilate words into completely bizarre meanings and then lie about what other people have said so you can claim they agree with you.

Just to ram it home to you, "non-falsifiable" means "cannot be proven to be false". It doesn't matter how many times you say that something is real, verifiable, truth, fact or whatever nonsense you want to construct - if it cannot be proven to be false it cannot be true either. If there is no way to create a test where the result could be "this is false", it cannot be tested and found to be true.

Well since from all indication you are a Brit, any one of the King James versions should suffice.

Why would it "suffice"? Is "close enough" good enough to receive all knowledge of God now?

What about when an instruction says "trust" in my KJV but "hope" in your whatever version? They're different words that mean different things (and probably something completely different to you) and if I do not follow the process precisely it won't work - right?

And BTW to repeat once again, it is not my process but God's.
If you don't mind, please make every effort possible to acknowledge that from here on out.

The claim that it is God's process is non-falsifiable. So I will continue to point out that it is your claim.

You have also still completely failed to state your process, from the starting conditions of the test, step by step to enlightenment.

First there is no "my belief system", there is only "the reality".

... in your belief system.

And I'm sorry but I'm not forcing anything.

Yes you are. You're insisting that your belief system is the only real one - and indeed all of reality.

Except it cannot be falsified.

I am however detailing "the reality" logically and rationally.

Your reality is non-falsifiable.

If you prefer to halt the probe of that particular detail, it's OK by me.
Although, it seems somewhat futile to discuss this subject with that exclusion.

It's futile to discuss anything with you, given that you are more than happy to lie about what other people say and mutilate language.

 

[Scaff]

Again, a Godless mind cannot understand the word in Spirit.
Jesus said "I am the door". What does that mean to you?

Have nothing at all to do with what I said, nice evasion.

Yes, gravity does require belief. No one knows what it is. It's just guessing, like everything else they not sure about.

Your quite clearly guessing given that what you've just said is utter nonsense.

Do you believe that "something" started the big bang?

Define 'something'.

It won't, if you have other agendas in your heart, other then wanting to know God.
I had that same issue for 30 years, until I truly put aside the material things my heart desired.
Man cannot serve God and mammon.
As a man thinketh in his heart, so is he.

Another Christian who knows me better than I do!

Explain to me how that is

I've noticed that you still haven't grasped the concept that Jesus removed the law of which the Jews were under in the Old testament, by not understanding the verse in Matthew 5:17

Let me try helping you again:

NOt a single one of those support your claim at all, and even if they did that would still not remove the contradiction that the church still uses Jewish law from the OT in its teachings to this day and displays them in every church.

Nor does it then remove the problem of a supposed divine being getting it wrong and then coming back dressed up as his own son to put right his mistake (and contradicting his own teachings with doing so and getting back to a good old bit of OT violence)!

Sorry, thats one of God's requirements and I have no control over it.

It's one of God's requirements that you're able to read my mind and know what my intentions were twenty years ago?

Bollocks.

 

[Spurgy 777]

It's one of God's requirements that you're able to read my mind and know what my intentions were twenty years ago?

Bollocks.

I thought he meant that one of god's requirements was that you had to be stunningly arrogant

 

[JKgo]

Ohh man, there are even more gibberish and circular reasoning in here than inside a head of a drunken sailor.

I'm gonna take a five from this thread for awhile...

 

[20832]

Pretty funny if you're into satire, but he makes some good points. *VERY STRONG LANGUAGE*

 

[Danoff]

There is no information gained during the experience by the person having the experience, only after the experience has already ended.

If you gain no information during the experience, you cannot remember the experience and cannot have perceived it in any fashion during. The term "experience" by the way is intimately tied with the term "information" in that an experience is the reception of information.

You've read the account above and you'd say the person having the experience observes "God" during the experience? Or can only a person observing the person having the experience make an observation during the experience?

Both people can make an observation. The person having the experience can observe what was experienced, and the third party can observe the person having the experience. It's the difference between "I was holding the cat" and "I saw him holding the cat".

As such, "God" is fundamentally different from a cat. Would you agree?

Yes. Cats exist.

 

[doctorrg]

If you gain no information during the experience, you cannot remember the experience and cannot have perceived it in any fashion during.

Exactly. All you have, in a sense, is a lingering feeling, often accompanied by a sudden sense of clarity. But you have absolutely no knowledge how this came about. So we agree that there is no observation during the account, correct?

The term "experience" by the way is intimately tied with the term "information" in that an experience is the reception of information.

Are you now saying I've used the wrong word? That's your argument? Then please pray tell what word is more appropriate here, because I didn't think "experience" would be much of an issue. If there was any ambiguity, it could easily have been explained (mind you, it has been explained, repeatedly)

Both people can make an observation.

Didn't you just agree with me that if you gain no information during the "experience" that you cannot have perceived it in any fashion during? So, how can both people make an observation?

The person having the experience can observe what was experienced,

As said, apparently, I've used the wrong word for it. So you agree now, that based on the account, the person having the "experience" cannot have perceived it in any fashion during?

and the third party can observe the person having the experience.

Yes.

It's the difference between "I was holding the cat" and "I saw him holding the cat".

No, absolutely not. It's the difference between "I was holding the cat" and "I was able to measure his biochemistry during him holding the cat". Surely, that should be clear to anyone by now, right?

Yes. Cats exist.

Thank You. The cat exists within phenomenal reality, "God" doesn't. I completely agree.

 

[Danoff]

Exactly. All you have, in a sense, is a lingering feeling, often accompanied by a sudden sense of clarity. But you have absolutely no knowledge how this came about. So we agree that there is no observation during the account, correct?



Are you now saying I've used the wrong word? That's your argument? Then please pray tell what word is more appropriate here, because I didn't think "experience" would be much of an issue. If there was any ambiguity, it could easily have been explained (mind you, it has been explained, repeatedly)



Didn't you just agree with me that if you gain no information during the "experience" that you cannot have perceived it in any fashion during? So, how can both people make an observation?



As said, apparently, I've used the wrong word for it. So you agree now, that based on the account, the person having the "experience" cannot have perceived it in any fashion during?

If you had an experience, you can observe that experience. If you had some sort of event which you cannot perceive (observe), then you didn't have an event. A lingering clarity or whatever is still an observation and experience and information.

No, absolutely not. It's the difference between "I was holding the cat" and "I was able to measure his biochemistry during him holding the cat". Surely, that should be clear to anyone by now, right?

No. An observation is an observation. One of them might qualify as scientific evidence and the other does not, but let's be clear about what an observation is.

Thank You. The cat exists within phenomenal reality, "God" doesn't. I completely agree.

Yes, cats exist in reality. And in reality God does not exist.

 

[Famine]

Kant used noumenon and phenomenon wrongly anyway.

 

[doctorrg]

If you had an experience, you can observe that experience. If you had some sort of event which you cannot perceive (observe), then you didn't have an event.

Are you saying that if an even cannot be perceived then it didn't happen?

A lingering clarity or whatever is still an observation and experience and information.

I agree. But who's to say that there wasn't some event the effects of which, i.e. lingering clarity, can be observed? Unless, of course, you're really saying if you can't perceive an event it didn't happen?

No. An observation is an observation. One of them might qualify as scientific evidence and the other does not, but let's be clear about what an observation is.

I believe we are. We weren't all that clear with respect to "experience", but let me accept your terminology. Let me rephrase and say that there is a God event, followed by an observation. There is no observation during the event, but immediately after.

But you're saying this now:

If you had some sort of event which you cannot perceive (observe), then you didn't have an event.

Unless there is something you know that I don't, there's either no way for you to know this, or this needs to apply to all events, i.e. if an event (any event) cannot be perceived then it didn't happen.

So, what exactly are you saying here?

Yes, cats exist in reality. And in reality God does not exist.

Within context, agreed.

Kant used noumenon and phenomenon wrongly anyway.

Can you tell me who came up with these terms?

 

[Famine]

Can you tell me who came up with these terms?

That'd be the Greeks.

 

[doctorrg]

That'd be the Greeks.

Then let's look at their meaning, and see what can be said. Then let's have a look at Kant and see how what he said is "wrongly anyway".

Edit: Not that it would matter to my current argument, as I've been rather clear on terms here, but it would make an interesting debate nevertheless, one I'd happily partake in.

 

[Famine]

Then let's look at their meaning, and see what can be said.

Sure. Noumenon means "that which is perceived" and Phenomenon means "that which is seen".

Plato used the terms to mean truths and established knowledge (noumenon) and how those truths manifested (phenomenon).

Kant used the terms to mean something that only exists in thought and not perceptible by the senses (noumenon) and something that appears to the senses (phenomenon).

 

[doctorrg]

Sure. Noumenon means "that which is perceived" and Phenomenon means "that which is seen".

Plato used the terms to mean truths and established knowledge (noumenon) and how those truths manifested (phenomenon).

Kant used the terms to mean something that only exists in thought and not perceptible by the senses (noumenon) and something that appears to the senses (phenomenon).

So which of these do you say is right?

 

[Famine]

So which of these do you say is right?

The first two.

The distinction of noumenon not being perceptible by the senses at all is one only Kant drew. Plato's usage is much closer to the concepts of theory and evidence.

 

[doctorrg]

The first two.

The distinction of noumenon not being perceptible by the senses at all is one only Kant drew. Plato's usage is much closer to the concepts of theory and evidence.

Would you agree with the following:

Humans are limited to directly examining only their perception, this much is true.

 

[Danoff]

Are you saying that if an even cannot be perceived then it didn't happen?

As far as you're concerned, yes.

I agree. But who's to say that there wasn't some event the effects of which, i.e. lingering clarity, can be observed? Unless, of course, you're really saying if you can't perceive an event it didn't happen?

That'd be an event that was observed.

I believe we are. We weren't all that clear with respect to "experience", but let me accept your terminology. Let me rephrase and say that there is a God event, followed by an observation. There is no observation during the event, but immediately after.

Ok. How do we know it was a God event? What about the observation requires it to be a God event?

Unless there is something you know that I don't, there's either no way for you to know this, or this needs to apply to all events, i.e. if an event (any event) cannot be perceived then it didn't happen.

Your perception of reality is all that you have of reality. If you cannot perceive something, how can you accept it as reality? Keep in mind that perception is a very broad term. Perception can be witnessing an effect on others. You perceive of things by reading them, by hearing others describe them, and you perceive things which are not reality as well, such as fantasy.

 

[doctorrg]

As far as you're concerned, yes.

Are you asking me to accept an effect without cause, because I can't say there was a cause in the first place?

That'd be an event that was observed.

So you say if you observe effects of an event, you are observing the event, not just effects of the event?

Ok. How do we know it was a God event? What about the observation requires it to be a God event?

Nothing, nothing at all, but I've addressed all this in detail previously.

Your perception of reality is all that you have of reality.

Agreed.

If you cannot perceive something, how can you accept it as reality?

Didn't you just say your perception of reality is all that you have of reality, how then could you say there is a reality in the first place? Naturally, it needs to be there, because if it isn't, our perception of reality, even if it is all that you have of reality, doesn't really make much sense. Without reality, there is no meaning. Yet, how do you really know?

Can you see how we need to accept certain things in order to assign meaning to that which is our perception?

Keep in mind that perception is a very broad term. Perception can be witnessing an effect on others. You perceive of things by reading them, by hearing others describe them, and you perceive things which are not reality as well, such as fantasy.

I think we've somewhat drifted off the original context already, after all, the initial context was clearly that of scientific investigation, but I'm not that inflexible.

So, to get back to the question of reality (which most of us would agree exists), what rationale do we really have to be certain of its existence, if what we call perception is all we really have? Or would you disagree with the latter?

 

[LeMansAid]

Kant used the terms to mean something that only exists in thought and not perceptible by the senses (noumenon) and something that appears to the senses (phenomenon).

We're instruments of unknown capacity though.

Give someone a set of headphones and a stereo and they might sit down and listen to audio of some type. Possibly completely unaware that those headphones could also be used as a microphone. Maybe we've got spirits all around us, and have the capacity to know of them, but not the ability (or the ability yet), to demonstrate that we know of them.

I'm assuming that with "senses", we're talking about known senses.

 

[Denur]

Put yourself in the disciples positions.
After that conversation, did anything happen to alarm the disciples? No.
What did they do? They continued preaching the message of Jesus, and died doing it. Either way, they still got Raptured, along with every other Believer since. That was the whole point, so that people would rest assured, knowing that Jesus would return for them, and sure enough. they would see Jesus in heaven.

They would have kept on praying because up until the last survivor they believed that they were that Generation. The prophecy failed to come true, and each believer since, believed/believes that they are that Generation. You are no exception. You believe the Bible to be infallible and your mind will find ways to make 'things' fit again.

We are the generation that will actually see Jesus return to Jerusalem as He says.

Why again are you so certain about that? Every sign can be there, but you know very well that only the Lord knows when His Plan comes to fruition. When will you admit that your interpretation of this particular prophecy failed too, October 1st 2015? Or sometime next year, maybe? Oh, and when you are right after all, feel free to mock me from Up There. I'll be a sport while my nuts are burning.

It didn't happen in their life time, so obviously they would have known it wasn't their generation.

Or, they were smart enough to realize that they were conned.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

You deliberately removed a quote from its context and then changed the words so it was no longer the original quote or intent and then proceeded to tell a member what he meant by what you said he'd said when he had said something else.

The only reason to do that is to purposefully mislead. Or lie, as we call it in the land where words are used properly.

Did you actually read any of the posts on this?

This was Imari's statement:

No rational person simply refuses to learn more for no reason at all.

To which I replied:

Thats quite correct.
And I have the best reason in the expanse of life as we know it, to no longer seek inquiry as to the existence of God.

Then you said concerning that reply:

That's literally the definition of closing your mind - to the possibility that you're wrong.

And I replied:

I beg to differ.
My response was to his claim that no one without a reason, refuses to learn more.
In reality here, it is not refusal but solid reasons to the contrary for rejecting what is assumed to be learning on this subject.

Sorry but I am missing the Federal case here?
There is nothing misleading about it.
Imari, to my knowledge never responded in that my answer to his statement was a misinterpretation.
And for the third or fourth time, or however many, my answer is the same period.
And I don't appreciate your assumptive implications of intent.
Likewise for the record they are patently false.

And now you won't admit that you won't admit that you could be wrong Neither does the quote.

Well just keep in mind thats a two way street.

It was merely in the Islam thread and it was a Christian trying to validate his ignorance with a quote from the Bible. Click on the link and this much would become patently obvious - as obvious as it is that you didn't even bother.Yeah...

It 's also obvious, you apparently never read my post.
Big surprise.

How on Earth can wars being fought over the differences in different Bibles be relevant to the fact that the differences in different Bibles are enough to cause conflict? I can't even imagine.Yes, you do.A claim that is itself non-falsifiable...Which is irrelevant if he is "physically" non-falsifiable.Which is itself non-falsifiable.Which is babbling horsecrap and... non-falsifiable.His claim - and the claim of Jesus to be his son (and him at the same time) - is non-falsifiable.Which is non-falsifiable.And that is also non-falsifiable.And you have absolutely no concept of the English language, which is apparent from every post you make where you mutilate words into completely bizarre meanings and then lie about what other people have said so you can claim they agree with you.

Again in "the reality", they are not mutilated, but likely uncomfortable for you to hear.
For a fellow who doesn't believe anything, you sure do display a lot of beliefs.

Just to ram it home to you, "non-falsifiable" means "cannot be proven to be false". It doesn't matter how many times you say that something is real, verifiable, truth, fact or whatever nonsense you want to construct - if it cannot be proven to be false it cannot be true either.

You can continue to confine yourself to the physical box if you like, and in that box he is non-falsifiable.
At least for now.
But wouldn't you like to be part of "the reality"?

If there is no way to create a test where the result could be "this is false", it cannot be tested and found to be true.

Thats pure fantasy just as your "no belief" claim is.
What a test doesn't prove is useless, except in elimination.
What it "does prove" is the only thing relevant.
One thing the historical record shows clearly, is that with regard to the "nonfalsifiable" the "assumption of false" is a huge mistake.

You have also still completely failed to state your process, from the starting conditions of the test, step by step to enlightenment.... in your belief system.Yes you are. You're insisting that your belief system is the only real one - and indeed all of reality.

It's not my belief system, just "the reality".

Except it cannot be falsified.Your reality is non-falsifiable.It's futile to discuss anything with you, given that you are more than happy to lie about what other people say and mutilate language.

Well, just keep telling yourself that.
My apologies for the intrusion on your own private reality.


"If the atheist experience was able to objectively look at the evidence provided by the truth movement, you would be compelled to support. This would be powerful, as I am finding that almost all atheist organizations seem to tow the line. You are looked up to – inspiring leaders of reason. Please re-consider your position, as I think you may start the house of “skeptics” to fall if you relate the proper information. This would be a great thing for society, as IMHO, the atheist and skeptics societies have failed miserably with their duty to seek the truth. But this can change, and reason and evidence can push through faulty conjecture."


(emphasis on, "their duty to seek the truth")

source :http://freethoughtblogs.com/axp/201...rase-that-loses-every-argument/#ixzz3dh7Eknc5

BTW, Happy Fathers day.