Religious faithw v

[Heisenberg]

I accept personal revelation as legitimate evidence for the person having the experience only. I can't falsify their experience, however their experience holds zero weight to anyone else unless testable.

I had this exact attitude for a long time. I used to think that if I had an experience that convinced me of God, I would still have to question it. Since I couldn't be sure, I wouldn't be able to say it was proof, even to me. But then I figured if the experience left me with doubt, it wouldn't truly be a divine experience. So maybe without having one, I could not judge.

But are there any true divine experiences? Unless something happens that is beyond doubt, it isn't divine, and I have never heard of such an experience. Unless the experience can not possibly have a natural explanation, then it must be subject to Occams razor. We need extraordinary reasons to make extraordinary assumptions. If people make the assumption that god is behind the experience, it is a result of their own irresponsibility. Even if someone did have an experience that went beyond all natural explanations like tumor, hallucinations, ect, jumping to god would still be less responsible than say, assuming the matrix or aliens implanting memories as a practical joke or a computer glitch in a reality simulation.. all these things break fewer logical barriers than God.

Of course without having an experience myself, I can not say for sure, but I am confident enough to now say that I do not accept personal experience as rationale for certainty, even for that one person.

 

[sso]

yea thats where the bigbang theory comes in for me

so what came before the big bang and what made all that matter so scrunched up in the first place?

universe goes in cycles and dissapears regularily into a blackhole and born again like a star?

possibly.

 

[sso]

I had this exact attitude for a long time. I used to think that if I had an experience that convinced me of God, I would still have to question it. Since I couldn't be sure, I wouldn't be able to say it was proof, even to me. But then I figured if the experience left me with doubt, it wouldn't truly be a divine experience. So maybe without having one, I could not judge.

But are there any true divine experiences? Unless something happens that is beyond doubt, it isn't divine, and I have never heard of such an experience. Unless the experience can not possibly have a natural explanation, then it must be subject to Occams razor. We need extraordinary reasons to make extraordinary assumptions. If people make the assumption that god is behind the experience, it is a result of their own irresponsibility. Even if someone did have an experience that went beyond all natural explanations like tumor, hallucinations, ect, jumping to god would still be less responsible than say, assuming the matrix or aliens implanting memories as a practical joke or a computer glitch in a reality simulation.. all these things break fewer logical barriers than God.

Of course without having an experience myself, I can not say for sure, but I am confident enough to now say that I do not accept personal experience as rationale even for that one person.

its like when people die and come back, its always colored by their beliefs, this experience and varies between religions for example who meets them on the other side.

two things come to mind at that.

in dreams, if we realise we dream, then we can create our own dream..

second, maybe simply its all true lol

all beliefs, there is certainly space enough for that, multiple dimensions and all that lol

 

[Jar Man]

Religious people, by which I mean those who believe in an interactive creator god, fall into three categories. Lazy thinkers, sloppy thinkers, and inconsistent thinkers. Many are lazy and have not thought much at all about God, even though they may know scripture by heart. They have accepted and learned about god, but not done any real examination. Many others have thought deeply about god, but have not been careful. They defend their belief with errors, special pleading and sometimes manipulation. Then there are those who admit they have no good reason to believe in god, but believe anyway. These people are inconsistent, and are unable to explain why god gets a pass. If your position can so easily be put in one of these categories, it really isn't a defensible position, and you have no business bringing it to the table where serious adults sit.

"The person who is certain, and who claims divine warrant for his certainty, belongs now to the infancy of our species." - C Hitchens​

Ree- hee- hee heely! Where to begin on this? Well let's just say I'm a former devout atheist who had a profound spiritual experience ("rebirth") alone in my own home in Sep-Nov, 1999. It wasn't, "Jesus" or anything quite like some may imagine at all. Oh, there's most certainly a God Almighty alright! But admittedly it doesn't really follow specifically the miraculous hokus-pokus nonsense in the Bible either. It's a thinking man's thing that jives with what an atheist likes- hard pan manifest reality: "Jehovah" in Hebrew means, "Behold, I am, that I am all that you now and ever shall- Behold!" a.k.a., "Youz' already been standin' there lookin' at IT all your life anyway!" IT's all that is our perceptible reality on the most scientific level. Or, "The Absolute Whole Truth And Nothing But Whatsoever!" The whole matter points to the exact same conclusion for everyone and none can deny IT! There's no specific religion about the deeper truths everywhere. Religion amounts to the first heaven that will pass away due to being Romper Room grade spirituality that's conflicting and incomplete. The bottom line is that in all that encompasses the hostile and otherwise lifeless emptiness the known Universe there's positively no way humanity could evolve to exist as it does today from space dust, plasma clouds and starlight unless there is indeed a birthless and deathless Supreme All-Wise Intelligent Creator running the whole show. Sure, IT's far more fantastic, overwhelmingly mind blowing and exalted beyond anything the Bible attempts to paint. All I know is I had the equivalent of a psychological Supernova of realization as a result of my experence that took several years to functionally adjust to, and is an ongoing process where I never arrive anyway. Far more that time and space won't permit to elaborate on here and now, but the fact remains irrefutable beyond any doubt.

 

[callofcannabis]

no one knows what happened befor the big bang or how it came to be,and we will probly never know
how are we ever supposed to get close to that answer if we are not even advanced enough to get passed our solar system much less then our galaxy

 

[PbHash]

How can you take a personal experience as a rational and ligitiment argument. I would argue the well know FACT that our brain twists reality. If you think what you see with your eyes and what you remember from them past is a good depiction of reality, well buddy it isn't. Our minds are very lazy, if it doesn't understand something it will make it up.

 

[Heisenberg]

The bottom line is that in all that encompasses the hostile and otherwise lifeless emptiness the known Universe there's positively no way humanity could evolve to exist as it does today from space dust, plasma clouds and starlight unless there is indeed a birthless and deathless Supreme All-Wise Intelligent Creator running the whole show.

Well I did state an interactive creator god, as in one who answers prayers, and it's not clear if you are talking about that. Sounds maybe like you mean deism; god created the universe but beyond that we can't be sure. My comments can also apply to deism, though as deism has no dogma, I do not see the position as harmful.

This, unless I misread, pretty much describes the anthropological argument. The idea that our existence is so unlikely to happen by chance when you consider the enormous amount of things which had to be just right for it to happen. Is that a fair assessment of your reasoning?

 

[PbHash]

no one knows what happened befor the big bang or how it came to be,and we will probly never know
how are we ever supposed to get close to that answer if we are not even advanced enough to get passed our solar system much less then our galaxy

With a little reading you would find that we have some very good ideas of how the big bang happened and what was before it. Read the book call "the hidden reality" it will blow your mind. If you read this book you can expect your brain to hate you, I have had to read it a few time to even say I have a small grasp on it. I bet you didn't know that if the universe is plainly an infinite multiverse you could expect to find a universe exactly like ours at a ratio of 1:10^10^122.

 

[Beefbisquit]

I had this exact attitude for a long time. I used to think that if I had an experience that convinced me of God, I would still have to question it. Since I couldn't be sure, I wouldn't be able to say it was proof, even to me. But then I figured if the experience left me with doubt, it wouldn't truly be a divine experience. So maybe without having one, I could not judge.

But are there any true divine experiences? Unless something happens that is beyond doubt, it isn't divine, and I have never heard of such an experience. Unless the experience can not possibly have a natural explanation, then it must be subject to Occams razor.

I'm not really sure I know what a divine experience would be like! I've certainly never had one, but I agree with you; Occams razor is fundamental for testing the validity of statements.

We need extraordinary reasons to make extraordinary assumptions. If people make the assumption that god is behind the experience, it is a result of their own irresponsibility.

This is pretty much the view I hold. However, there's this little nagging voice inside my head telling me that certainty can be dangerous.

Even if someone did have an experience that went beyond all natural explanations like tumor, hallucinations, ect, jumping to god would still be less responsible than say, assuming the matrix or aliens implanting memories as a practical joke or a computer glitch in a reality simulation.. all these things break fewer logical barriers than God.

Very true, Occam's razor is an exceptional tool for generalizing whether or not one argument is more likely than another. However, it is based in our current understanding of the universe. What Occam's razor found more likely true/false only a few years ago can change drastically over an extremely small period of time. That is to say, Occam's razor is blind to everything unknown to the user of it, or it's only as reliable as the information punched into it.

Of course without having an experience myself, I can not say for sure, but I am confident enough to now say that I do not accept personal experience as rationale for certainty, even for that one person.

I have never, and will never accept personal revelation as a reason for me to believe. I find it harder to reject someone else's experience because I have nothing to base it on except my own (lack of) experience.

 

[Jar Man]

You see there really will be an end of tenably marketable (leveraging profits over costs/debts) time. An actual Judgment Day that makes logical sense and teaches something of value. And in fact what represents a global scale Armageddon will happen. The whole matter represents socioeconomic, cultural and/or sovereign, "elements" that will melt with fervent heat. Not a nuclear conflict or disaster as most expect. Har Megiddo was long a strategic hub at the crossroads of major trade routes. The sovereign that owned and controled Megiddo held a huge advantage to capitalize from the flow of trade and commerce over most of the known civilized world in ancient times. Everybody wanted Megiddo and would fight endlessly at tremendous cost to gain a foothold in the Valley of Jezreel. This is really what the story of Armageddon is all about. Marketing, trade, commerce, and it's control for an advantage over other sovereigns worldwide. We can see this end of manageable time unfolding of late, particularly since '08'. The roller coaster economic cycles we've long endured are shortening in duration and closing in where soon and suddenly enough the Big Bills will come due before any profit margins can be generated via marketable innovation on a massive enough scale. The gap grows ever larger between rich and poor with no end in sight. Our infrastructure and public education system is falling apart and many are still in denial of just how bad things really are everywhere to sustain consumer confidence and sell the idea, "Just go shopping and everything will be just fine tomorrow, folks!" It's beginning to make too much sense:


"And so when you see the abomination that causes desolation standing [where it ought not*], know it is at the doors."
Daniel/Jesus

* We The People living in the land of the free and home of the brave, with liberty and justice for all. The first and last nation on earth established upon principles most operably akin in daily practice to The Holy of Holies. A Giant 24/7/365, 'Nation/Church' from the gound up, if you will. No need for a redundant Church or religion inside a much larger and all encompassing One that no one can ever leave, you know. Hence the more true need for separation of Church and State.

 

[Heisenberg]

You see there really will be an end of tenably marketable (leveraging profits over costs/debts) time. An actual Judgment Day that makes logical sense and teaches something of value. And in fact what represents a global scale Armageddon will happen. The whole matter represents socioeconomic, cultural and/or sovereign, "elements" that will melt with fervent heat. Not a nuclear conflict or disaster as most expect. Har Megiddo was long a strategic hub at the crossroads of major trade routes. The sovereign that owned and controled Megiddo held a huge advantage to capitalize from the flow of trade and commerce over most of the known civilized world in ancient times. Everybody wanted Megiddo and would fight endlessly at tremendous cost to gain a foothold in the Valley of Jezreel. This is really what the story of Armageddon is all about. Marketing, trade, commerce, and it's control for an advantage over other sovereigns worldwide. We can see this end of manageable time unfolding of late, particularly since '08'. The roller coaster economic cycles we've long endured are shortening in duration and closing in where soon and suddenly enough the Big Bills will come due before any profit margins can be generated via marketable innovation on a massive enough scale. The gap grows ever larger between rich and poor with no end in sight. Our infrastructure and public education system is falling apart and many are still in denial of just how bad things really are everywhere to sustain consumer confidence and sell the idea, "Just go shopping and everything will be just fine tomorrow, folks!" It's beginning to make too much sense:


"And so when you see the abomination that causes desolation standing [where it ought not*], know it is at the doors."
Daniel/Jesus

* We The People living in the land of the free and home of the brave, with liberty and justice for all. The first and last nation on earth established upon principles most operably akin in daily practice to The Holy of Holies. A Giant 24/7/365, 'Nation/Church' from the gound up, if you will. No need for a redundant Church or religion inside a much larger and all encompassing One that no one can ever leave, you know. Hence the more true need for separation of Church and State.

Wow, I was eager to explore the anthropological argument with you, but now I'm afraid of stepping in batshit.

 

[Jar Man]

How can you take a personal experience as a rational and ligitiment argument. I would argue the well know FACT that our brain twists reality. If you think what you see with your eyes and what you remember from them past is a good depiction of reality, well buddy it isn't. Our minds are very lazy, if it doesn't understand something it will make it up.

Yep! In short, there is no reality but the reality we perceive. And everything amounts to everyones own personal experience anyway. Some agree and some dont. Of course it's hard to argue about mathematics. 2+2=4 in any language.

 

[Jar Man]

Wow, I was eager to explore the anthropological argument with you, but now I'm afraid of stepping in batshit.

There really isn't an argument against the antropological perspective. Evolution happened as it happened. There's nothing conflicting about the absolute whole truth and nothing but whatsoever. I believe Adam was simply the first sufficiently evolved human to have a revelation of a higher power or intelligence. Science is science because like matematics, it has to make operably workable and logical universal sense or truth.

 

[Zaehet Strife]

how could you ever find truth if you just make it up as you go.... ?

the only truth ive ever experienced, or enlightenment ive ever had... is the sudden realization of how much i do not know, with the sudden realization of just what lengths i had gone through to tell myself otherwise. waking up from my own dream in a sense, or waking up from my own self created reality.

 

[Jar Man]

Another one that proves the point is how our relatively recent industrial and technological development doesn't really fit any Darwinian or other 'haphazardly by chance' assumptions. The fact humanity had scarcely changed in this account for thousands of years relative to the last century or two, or even less is mind boggling and doesn't make any sense otherwise.

 

[Jar Man]

how could you ever find truth if you just make it up as you go.... ?

Oh well! Suppose it was only my imagination that 2+2=4 for everone else. Crap! Shoulda' known...

 

[PbHash]

Yep! In short, there is no reality but the reality we perceive. And everything amounts to everyones own personal experience anyway. Some agree and some dont. Of course it's hard to argue about mathematics. 2+2=4 in any language.

Wow! My next debate was going to be about mathematics. Topic is: are 1 and 0.999999999999999(9 for infinity) the same?

 

[Heisenberg]

Another one that proves the point is how our relatively recent industrial and technological development doesn't really fit any Darwinian or other 'haphazardly by chance' assumptions. The fact humanity had scarcely changed in this account for thousands of years relative to the last century or two, or even less is mind boggling and doesn't make any sense otherwise.

Neither Darwinism or the anthropological principal cite randomness as an explanation. The describe specific filters which helped shape and allow for our existence, the opposite of haphazard chance. Furthermore, we never accept an explanation purely for the reason that it's the only way things make sense. I think increased awareness and education, improved practice of science and the embracement of free inquiry go along way to explaining recent development.

 

[Heisenberg]

Wow! My next debate was going to be about mathematics. Topic is: are 1 and 0.999999999999999(9 for infinity) the same?

If you start that here I will never forgive you.

 

[cannabineer]

I had this exact attitude for a long time. I used to think that if I had an experience that convinced me of God, I would still have to question it. Since I couldn't be sure, I wouldn't be able to say it was proof, even to me. But then I figured if the experience left me with doubt, it wouldn't truly be a divine experience. So maybe without having one, I could not judge.

But are there any true divine experiences? Unless something happens that is beyond doubt, it isn't divine, and I have never heard of such an experience. Unless the experience can not possibly have a natural explanation, then it must be subject to Occams razor. We need extraordinary reasons to make extraordinary assumptions. If people make the assumption that god is behind the experience, it is a result of their own irresponsibility. Even if someone did have an experience that went beyond all natural explanations like tumor, hallucinations, ect, jumping to god would still be less responsible than say, assuming the matrix or aliens implanting memories as a practical joke or a computer glitch in a reality simulation.. all these things break fewer logical barriers than God.

Of course without having an experience myself, I can not say for sure, but I am confident enough to now say that I do not accept personal experience as rationale for certainty, even for that one person.

Heisenberg, when I was much younger I had just such a God-experience. As the years went by, though, I was never able to convince myself that the experience (however amazing, out-of-category and beautiful it was) might not have been entirely internal, the manifestation of a neurophysiological app not ordinarily run.

And as you so aptly point out, it failed/fails the usual reality tests: detectability and reproducibility of an unambiguously or at least suggestively ascribable effect in/on the mundane. Religious traditions short-circuit this with accounts of miracles ... but all the miracles in question are shrouded in antiquity, obscurity or both. Just too damned convenient for me, like an old Sunday-school teacher who told me that "the age of miracles is past". cn