Experiencing God

[sojourner]

And off you go moving the goalposts and hoping nobody notices. You got caught in a claim that was demonstrably factually wrong, yet instead of admitting your error, you're changing your argument. Oh wait! Love didn't work? Let's try beauty!

Yeah, I think we're done here.

Love is like beauty, in that neither one can be measured or quantified. I'm not moving goalposts, and I'm not "demonstrably, factually wrong." The quality of love depends far more on personal meaning (like beauty) than it does on quantifiable measurements. That's because love has scope and meaning far beyond just its measurable, chemical reactions. If that weren't the case, most songs wouldn't be about love, and we wouldn't have love poetry. Love may involve measureable, chemical reactions, but love is not those reactions, themselves. That's what you're trying to claim and you're mistaken. Speaking of goalposts, it's like a sporting contest. Is the "measurable outcome" of the game "better" if it's a rout, or if it's a one-point squeaker? We don't know -- the numbers don't tell us that. All they tell us is "who won the game." Is that the sum total of the game? No! Personally, I couldn't care less if the Timberwolves win or lose -- wouldn't watch them either way. If the Cowboys lose big time, that's important to me. If they win huge over their arch-rival, that's huge to someone else -- in a different way. If they pull out a squeaker, it's important in yet a different way. The numbers simply don't tell us everything, and the numbers aren't the thing, itself. They are merely indicators of the thing.

Theology is similar, in that the factual numbers can tell us a lot about the world, but they can't provide what the world may mean. Theology provides vehicles for meaning -- like art and poetry and music (which is, incidentally, why those things are used in religious worship). There simply are no objective, measurable facts that provide the basis for the existence of meaning, or the scope of love, or the proposition of God.

If you can't understand that, then there's no help for you, and you'll just have to live with your delusion that human experience can be boiled down to its constituent facts and no more. If that's the case, we are done, because there's no arguing with willful ignorance.

 

[Muffled]

I disagree. It really doesn't matter what you believe, it matters what you can prove and the only proof is objective and you have not provided any objective evidence at all. It doesn't matter what you feel, it doesn't matter what faith you have, it doesn't matter what arguments you concoct, until you can do a lot better than you've done, no rational person is going to take you seriously, and it isn't that they're biased against your "evidence", it's that your "evidence" is not remotely up to snuff.

Or that Jesus doesn't exist. Ever think of that one?

And the people in the Heaven's Gate cult believed that an alien spaceship was hiding in a comet's tail to take their souls away to heaven. Doesn't make it so. Just because you are personally convinced that what you believe is true, doesn't make it so. Your personal beliefs are not an arbiter of reality. That's why we look at things objectively, we step back and remove the human element, the emotions, the feelings, the beliefs and the faith, and only look at the evidence on the basis of the evidence. You have not done that. You have shown that you are incapable of doing that. That makes you inherently irrational.

Known what you believe? Sure. Respect any of it? Why should I?

I believe my proof is objective and you have not been able to characterize it otherwise although you have tried.

I beleive I have not done either.

I beleive you are saying that you don't believe in reasonable arguments. That leaves you in the bailiwick of faith and feelings.

I beleive you are judging my efficacy by your own imaginations. I have given you cogent arguments that you say poo poo to without trying to be reasonable about it.

I believe I am an extremely rational person and take myself seriously because I know my arguments are rational. Yours are not.

I believe that is a bias on your part.

I believe you are full of BS. By the way the space ships never came so the prophecy was a false prophecy. My prophecy came true. There is a big difference between a false prophecy and a true prophecy.

I believe you think you know rationale when you see it, but you are saying you don't see it so why should I beleive you can actually see it. Of course you don't respect rationality because you are being so irrational.

 

[Muffled]

Actually, it matters a great deal what one believes. Religion doesn't seek to provide evidence, it seeks to make meaning of the world and of our place in it.

I believe in one breat he says it doesn't matterwhat a person believes then finds fault with the belief of the cult that committed suicide. I believe that constitutes inconsistencey.

I believe what he is really saying is that belief does not necessarily equate with rational truth. I have to say that I believe things to stay within the rules but I am being rational in my explications and he is not.

 

[Muffled]

We had a speaker in church recently who gave this testimony: He said he was worried about losing his house and having to move back to his old neighborhood and asked God for a sign whether he should move. God told hm if someone gave him three transulcent rocks he should stay but if someone gave him three black rocks he should move. The next day someone gave him three translucent rocks.

I believe that is fulfilled prophecy. It is timely and specific.

 

[sojourner]

We had a speaker in church recently who gave this testimony: He said he was worried about losing his house and having to move back to his old neighborhood and asked God for a sign whether he should move. God told hm if someone gave him three transulcent rocks he should stay but if someone gave him three black rocks he should move. The next day someone gave him three translucent rocks.

I believe that is fulfilled prophecy. It is timely and specific.

That's not "prophecy." It's fortunetelling. And probably sensationalism.

 

[Cephus]

I believe my proof is objective and you have not been able to characterize it otherwise although you have tried.

It is, if and only if you can present the evidence to me so that I can independently evaluate it and come to the same conclusion that you have, based only on the facts, not your subjective interpretation of the facts. You have not remotely done so.

I beleive I have not done either.

I don't want to blame you or point fingers at you specifically because it's likely not useful. Therefore, in general terms, you have to admit that there are a lot of theists whose views are entirely predicated on their existing belief system. Every new piece of information they take in is put through their religious wringer. It's not taken in objectively, it's taken in subjectively, it must be made to fit in with the things they already believe.

I beleive you are saying that you don't believe in reasonable arguments. That leaves you in the bailiwick of faith and feelings.

The core of any reasonable argument is that the argument operates under the principles of logic and reason. It means that these beliefs must operate according to the established laws of logic. The one that I think virtually all theistic beliefs fail is Hamilton's 4th law, "infer nothing without ground or reason".

I beleive you are judging my efficacy by your own imaginations. I have given you cogent arguments that you say poo poo to without trying to be reasonable about it.

Not remotely. You have given arguments that appeal to you, not that you can objectively demonstrate are true or reasonable. I don't give a damn what gives you emotional comfort, what you wish was true or anything else. I only care about what you can actually demonstrate with objective evidence and well-established and critically evaluated argumentation. And when you can provide none of these things, the only rational conclusion anyone can come to is "I don't know". It isn't to just make something up and believe anyhow.

I believe I am an extremely rational person and take myself seriously because I know my arguments are rational. Yours are not

.

Confidence doesn't make it so, operating within the laws of logic and reason does.

I believe that is a bias on your part.

Believe what you like, it only matters what you can actually prove.

I believe you are full of BS. By the way the space ships never came so the prophecy was a false prophecy. My prophecy came true. There is a big difference between a false prophecy and a true prophecy.

You cannot demonstrate that there is any such thing as a true prophecy. The Bible is filled to the brim with false prophecies, yet you still seem to believe it.

I believe you think you know rationale when you see it, but you are saying you don't see it so why should I beleive you can actually see it. Of course you don't respect rationality because you are being so irrational.

There is a difference between "rationale" and "rational". You would do well to learn that difference.

 

[Muffled]

That's not "prophecy." It's fortunetelling. And probably sensationalism.

I believe God telliing what will happen in the future is not fortune telling. I do fortune telling with Tarot cards by the spirit of God and the difference is that God is not speaking directly but through a media. Others read cards by some other spirit and often enough do ok although some are real hacks at it.

 

[Muffled]

It is, if and only if you can present the evidence to me so that I can independently evaluate it and come to the same conclusion that you have, based only on the facts, not your subjective interpretation of the facts. You have not remotely done so.

I believe I have given you objective measures but you have not responded to them. I believe if you continue to say everything is subjective then you are saying that nothing is objective.

I don't want to blame you or point fingers at you specifically because it's likely not useful. Therefore, in general terms, you have to admit that there are a lot of theists whose views are entirely predicated on their existing belief system. Every new piece of information they take in is put through their religious wringer. It's not taken in objectively, it's taken in subjectively, it must be made to fit in with the things they already believe.

I believe there is a lot of truth to that. The concept of a God that speaks prophecy is already present in the Bible, so it is more likely that I am going to believe that it is God who has spoken prophesy to me. However it must be said that having the same experience as those who had it in the Bible tends to accredit the Bible and its reference to God. After all the concept of being able to repeat an event (prophecy) tends to indicate that the events are valid.

The core of any reasonable argument is that the argument operates under the principles of logic and reason. It means that these beliefs must operate according to the established laws of logic. The one that I think virtually all theistic beliefs fail is Hamilton's 4th law, "infer nothing without ground or reason".

I don't believe my arguments have failed that law.

Not remotely. You have given arguments that appeal to you, not that you can objectively demonstrate are true or reasonable. I don't give a damn what gives you emotional comfort, what you wish was true or anything else. I only care about what you can actually demonstrate with objective evidence and well-established and critically evaluated argumentation. And when you can provide none of these things, the only rational conclusion anyone can come to is "I don't know". It isn't to just make something up and believe anyhow.

I have given rational arguments that you have not yet refuted. All you have done is provide reasons why you should not have to refute then which appears to me to be a cop-out.

Confidence doesn't make it so, operating within the laws of logic and reason does.

I believe you have not demonstrated where I have failed in my reasoning so I have every reason to be confident since my whole life has been spent as a logistician.

Believe what you like, it only matters what you can actually prove.

I believe that I do not believe what I like but what has been demonsrated to me in reality. I don't believe in believing what I like because it serves no purpose to deceive myself.

You cannot demonstrate that there is any such thing as a true prophecy. The Bible is filled to the brim with false prophecies, yet you still seem to believe it.

I believe that is not logical. The fact that there are false prophecies does not serve as evidence that there are not true prophecies. The evidence is clear that a true prophecy is one that is fulfilled and afalse one is not fulfilled.

There is a difference between "rationale" and "rational". You would do well to learn that difference.

I believe I am quite well aware of that but I would say that you are seeing a rationale where there is rational arguments.

 

[Cephus]

I believe I am quite well aware of that but I would say that you are seeing a rationale where there is rational arguments.

If there is a rational argument, then it can be backed up with objective evidence, logical discourse and facts. So far, you have presented none. You are seeing rationality where none exists.

 

[Muffled]

If there is a rational argument, then it can be backed up with objective evidence, logical discourse and facts. So far, you have presented none. You are seeing rationality where none exists.

I believe you are being irrational about this and although I have tried to lead you back to rationality I have to admit I have failed to do so. I believe it serves no purpose to have you go on spouting inanities and me anwesring them since it will not serve as progress. In other words we are in a logical loop that is going nowhere.

 

[Cephus]

I believe you are being irrational about this and although I have tried to lead you back to rationality I have to admit I have failed to do so. I believe it serves no purpose to have you go on spouting inanities and me anwesring them since it will not serve as progress. In other words we are in a logical loop that is going nowhere.

Then all you need to do is present objective evidence and a logical argument for your claims. It ought to be easy for you if you actually have a rational argument. One of the cornerstones of rationality is that you do not accept any claims until they have been objectively supported, yet clearly you don't follow that one. It's a loop that goes nowhere because you neither understand the terminology, nor the requirements.

 

[sojourner]

One of the cornerstones of rationality is that you do not accept any claims until they have been objectively supported

That's not the case. Subjective experience can also serve as a cornerstone for rationality.

 

[Cephus]

That's not the case. Subjective experience can also serve as a cornerstone for rationality.

In your opinion, not in mine.

 

[sojourner]

In your opinion, not in mine.

I disagree. You just said that subjective experience isn't rational. Your opinion is a subjective experience that cannot be proven by objective means. Therefore, your opinion is irrational and is not cogent to this topic.

 

[Cephus]

I disagree. You just said that subjective experience isn't rational. Your opinion is a subjective experience that cannot be proven by objective means. Therefore, your opinion is irrational and is not cogent to this topic.

No, I said basing a belief off of a subjective experience isn't rational. You can have all the subjective experiences you want but they are far inferior to objective experiences, evidence and logic. We know that personal experience is inherently faulty. People see things that aren't there all the time.

And an opinion is not an experience, it is a subjective interpretation. Geez, if you don't even know that...

 

[sojourner]

No, I said basing a belief off of a subjective experience isn't rational. You can have all the subjective experiences you want but they are far inferior to objective experiences, evidence and logic. We know that personal experience is inherently faulty. People see things that aren't there all the time.

And an opinion is not an experience, it is a subjective interpretation. Geez, if you don't even know that...

Here's what you said:
"One of the cornerstones of rationality is that you do not accept any claims until they have been objectively supported"
Go ahead -- support your claim objectively. I can't accept your claim of your opinion until it can be objectively supported that it's actually and objectively your opinion. Otherwise, I'd be accused of being irrational. If you can't support your claim, then it's an irrational claim -- and it would be irrational to accept it as rational -- and we need pay no attention to it for purposes of this argument.

 

[Cephus]

Here's what you said:
"One of the cornerstones of rationality is that you do not accept any claims until they have been objectively supported"
Go ahead -- support your claim objectively. I can't accept your claim of your opinion until it can be objectively supported that it's actually and objectively your opinion. Otherwise, I'd be accused of being irrational. If you can't support your claim, then it's an irrational claim -- and it would be irrational to accept it as rational -- and we need pay no attention to it for purposes of this argument.

It's not that hard. The definition of reason is to "think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic." The definition of objective is "not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts." If we are concerned with coming up with factually correct views of the universe, as opposed to emotionally-based (the definition of objective), we cannot use subjective, emotional ideas and opinions (again, the definition of objective) to support pre-existing emotional beliefs, based on nothing but blind faith. One of the core concepts in objective science is falsifiability. You must be able to examine your positions and experiences to see if existing knowledge has falsified them, and also, you must be able to conceive of a set of facts that, if found, would falsify your position or experience. If you cannot, you are not doing science. You are not using reason. You are not operating objectively. All of these things are not done with religion. It is inherently irrational by its very nature.

 

[sojourner]

It's not that hard. The definition of reason is to "think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic." The definition of objective is "not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts." If we are concerned with coming up with factually correct views of the universe, as opposed to emotionally-based (the definition of objective), we cannot use subjective, emotional ideas and opinions (again, the definition of objective) to support pre-existing emotional beliefs, based on nothing but blind faith. One of the core concepts in objective science is falsifiability. You must be able to examine your positions and experiences to see if existing knowledge has falsified them, and also, you must be able to conceive of a set of facts that, if found, would falsify your position or experience. If you cannot, you are not doing science. You are not using reason. You are not operating objectively. All of these things are not done with religion. It is inherently irrational by its very nature.

Blather. you said nothing about "science" or "the universe." You said that subjective experience wasn't rational, insinuating that it couldn't be used in a valid argument. Since the subject of the thread is "God," we are concerned with a theological argument, which certainly uses subjective information as a valid and reasonable basis.

 

[NathanShepard8888]

I am amazed that so many believers that have had "spiritual".

My experience of God has actually brought me to a point where I no longer require faith to believe in God. I am absolutely certain of his existence and presence in my life.

So I guess that leaves me with a question for those who have had God experiences. What do you think it was that you did which enabled you to experience what you experienced? What did you do to invoke God's attention?

I did nothing for my experience with God. I was completely unworthy of the experience. It was purely Grace.

 

[Cephus]

Blather. you said nothing about "science" or "the universe." You said that subjective experience wasn't rational, insinuating that it couldn't be used in a valid argument. Since the subject of the thread is "God," we are concerned with a theological argument, which certainly uses subjective information as a valid and reasonable basis.

No, I said you couldn't use it in a rational argument, which you can't. Everyone sitting around just expressing their personal and subjective opinions accomplishes nothing except flapping lips. There are no rational theological arguments for exactly that purpose.