You say that there is a god...

[ppp]

You say that there is a god, but irrespective of whether or not there actually is, why should I be convinced that you know or are even capable of knowing such a thing?

 

[SalixIncendium]

I say there are many gods.

You shouldn't be convinced unless you have your own experiential evidence of such a being.

That said, you shouldn't be quick to dismiss others' experiences of a god just because you haven't shared in such an experience.

 

[Vinayaka]

You say that there is a god, but irrespective of whether or not there actually is, why should I be convinced that you know or are even capable of knowing such a thing?

There is no reason for you to be convinced, or for me to try to convince you. We are a sum total of our individual experiences. No reason to project the conclusions of one's experiences onto another. That would be like discussing the restaurants of New York with somebody who lives on the Seychelles and has never been off them.

Of course, lots of folks don't seem to understand this basic idea, and somehow conclude everyone must have had similar experiences.

 

[ppp]

I say there are many gods.

I didn't say exactly one. But I take your point.

You shouldn't be convinced unless you have your own experiential evidence of such a being.

I don't know what you mean by that, but in this context people usually mean some form of personal revelation. If that is what you mean, that should not be enough to convince me. If not, please explain.

That said, you shouldn't be quick to dismiss others' experiences of a god just because you haven't shared in such an experience.

I agree. Your statment seems to imply a few things

• that I have been "quick" to dismiss others experience
• that dismissing their experience is equivalent to dismissing their explantion for their experience
• that I have not had such an experience

Before I respond, did you intend to imply any or all of those things? Or am I misunderstanding your intent?

 

[ppp]

There is no reason for you to be convinced, or for me to try to convince you.

We are a sum total of our individual experiences.

True

No reason to project the conclusions of one's experiences onto another.

Hard disagree. That statement may be true in some specific circumstances, but as a general rule, such projection is absolutely necessary for the theory of mind and for a sense of empathy. We could not form societies if we did not recognize that we are in many respects like one another.

That would be like discussing the restaurants of New York with somebody who lives on the Seychelles and has never been off them.

That is disanalogous. I discuss restaurants with people from countries that I have never been to all the time. A proper analogy would be for someone to tell me that they ate at a restaurant where there are human cooks and waitstaff, yet they attribute the tastiness of the meal to ghosts.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

I say there are many gods.

You shouldn't be convinced unless you have your own experiential evidence of such a being.

That said, you shouldn't be quick to dismiss others' experiences of a god just because you haven't shared in such an experience.

I never knew you believed in gods. Is this in a literal manner?

 

[SalixIncendium]

I don't know what you mean by that, but in this context people usually mean some form of personal revelation. If that is what you mean, that should not be enough to convince me. If not, please explain.

Why should you be convinced of another's personal revelation?

What I meant is that if one has an experience of something, a god or whatever, there is no expectation that you would be convinced of what was experienced in the absence of an experience of that same thing.

I agree. Your statment seems to imply a few things

• that I have been "quick" to dismiss others experience
• that dismissing their experience is equivalent to dismissing their explantion for their experience
• that I have not had such an experience

Before I respond, did you intend to imply any or all of those things? Or am I misunderstanding your intent?

This appears to be my first interaction with you. Making the first and third implications would be foolhardy on my part. I have no idea what you've done, have not done, or what you've experienced aside from I've seen. Such implications would require assumptions. I don't do assumptions.

For the first, I'm saying you shouldn't, not that you should not have. Telling someone they shouldn't harm another doesn't imply that they've harmed another. It's simply saying that such an act is wrong.

I'm not sure how what I said would imply that dismissing an experience is equivalent to dismissing their explanation of that experience. Perhaps you'll explain to me how you inferred that.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

You say that there is a god, but irrespective of whether or not there actually is, why should I be convinced that you know or are even capable of knowing such a thing?

Because we all have personal opinions, based on personal life observations. I'm not sure if your question would apply to me, however, because I don't claim to know there is a God, I simply believe there is God.

 

[SalixIncendium]

I never knew you believed in gods. Is this in a literal manner?

I contend that gods exists for those that worship or revere these gods, but gods are irrelevant to my own worldview

 

[ppp]

Why should you be convinced of another's personal revelation?

I think you forgot your statement to which I was replying. You said, ...unless you have your own experiential evidence of such a being."

Let me restate: I don't know what you mean by that, but in this context people usually mean some form of personal revelation. If that is what you mean, [my own experiential evidence of such a being] should not be enough to convince me. It would (and should) require stronger evidence.

What I meant is that if one has an experience of something, a god or whatever, there is no expectation that you would be convinced of what was experience in the absence of an experience of that same thing.

I agree. And if if one has an experience of something, a god or whatever, there is no expectation that one should necessarily be convinced that a god or whatever is the cause of that experience. No?

This appears to be my first interaction with you. Making the first and third implications would be foolhardy on my part. I have no idea what you've done, have not done, or what you've experienced aside from I've seen. Such implications would require assumptions. I don't do assumptions.

May those amongst us who has not been upon occasion foolhardy, throw the first jester.

• that I have been "quick" to dismiss others experience
• that dismissing their experience is equivalent to dismissing their explantion for their experience
• that I have not had such an experience.

I'm not sure how what I said would imply that dismissing an experience is equivalent to dismissing their explanation of that experience. Perhaps you'll explain to me how you inferred that.

Sure. You said, "That said, you shouldn't be quick to dismiss others' experiences of a god just because you haven't shared in such an experience." Which implicitly ties the event of the experience, with the explanation for the experience.

I drempt a conversation with a sister who did not survive gestation. It was a very casual and familar converasation. And it is an experience that I deeply treasure. But no matter the cause, that explanation cannot be supported by the mere contents of the experience.

 

[ppp]

Because we all have personal opinions, based on personal life observations. I'm not sure if your question would apply to me, however, because I don't claim to know there is a God, I simply believe there is God.

Sure. "Know" can be a tricky word. In this case I am using it to mean being strongly convinced by non fallacious reasoning and strong enough evidence to reach a rationally justified conclusion.


Cool name, BTW

 

[YmirGF]

You say that there is a god, but irrespective of whether or not there actually is, why should I be convinced that you know or are even capable of knowing such a thing?

Know is the weasel word here. Due to our imperfect physical/emotional/intellectual abilities I find it unlikely that we are in any position to refer to something as a god. We have no comparative data set. Are our visions of god so different from Pacific Islanders who treated visiting people from the first world as gods? My guess is that our highly vaunted ideas of god are telling us more about ourselves and our limitiations than they are telling us about any supposed being beyond time and space. Your mileage may vary though.

Exit question: Why is it that the individual always has the right view of god? I do find the certainty involved to be a useful way to grade the level of delusional thinking.

 

[PureX]

You say that there is a god, but irrespective of whether or not there actually is, why should I be convinced that you know or are even capable of knowing such a thing?

There is no reason for you to care what I or anyone else thinks of God, regardless. If you want or need a God in your experience of the world you're going to have to develop it for yourself. What kind of God do you think is possible? What kind of God would you want to exist? Is there any commonality between these? Keep in mind there can be no certainty. God is just a possibility that some people choose to trust in. Probably because doing so works in a positive way for them, in their lives. And if they can do it, so can you. But only if you want it. Otherwise, it's a moot issue.

 

[SalixIncendium]

I think you forgot your statement to which I was replying. You said, ...unless you have your own experiential evidence of such a being."

Let me restate: I don't know what you mean by that, but in this context people usually mean some form of personal revelation. If that is what you mean, [my own experiential evidence of such a being] should not be enough to convince me. It would (and should) require stronger evidence.

Why would you doubt your own experience?

What further evidence would you require to validate your experience?

I agree. And if if one has an experience of something, a god or whatever, there is no expectation that one should necessarily be convinced that a god or whatever is the cause of that experience. No?

Are you not convinced that you're having an experience of a discourse with me? If not, what further evidence do you need?

May those amongst us who has not been upon occasion foolhardy, throw the first jester.

• that I have been "quick" to dismiss others experience
• that dismissing their experience is equivalent to dismissing their explantion for their experience
• that I have not had such an experience.

Sure. You said, "That said, you shouldn't be quick to dismiss others' experiences of a god just because you haven't shared in such an experience." Which implicitly ties the event of the experience, with the explanation for the experience.

I drempt a conversation with a sister who did not survive gestation. It was a very casual and familar converasation. And it is an experience that I deeply treasure. But no matter the cause, that explanation cannot be supported by the mere contents of the experience.

You were in a different state of consciousness during that conversation, a dream state. To your dream character, I'm confident that experience was quite real and would have remained so right up until the point where you awakened. Do you recall in your dream your dream character dismissing the experience?

Had such a conversation transpired in your waking state, would you still dismiss the experience?

 

[King Phenomenon]

You say that there is a god, but irrespective of whether or not there actually is, why should I be convinced that you know or are even capable of knowing such a thing?

Look around

 

[ppp]

There is no reason for you to care what I or anyone else thinks of God, regardless.

That is not true. I suspect you are using sloppy language. If you think that your god wants you to cut out my eyeballs, or to paint my house neon orange, then there is a reason for me to care.

If you want or need a God in your experience of the world you're going to have to develop it for yourself.

Not relevant.

What kind of God do you think is possible?

I don't believe that any type of god is possible.

What kind of God would you want to exist? Is there any commonality between these?

Irrelavant.

Keep in mind there can be no certainty.

That is false. Again, I suspect you are using sloppy language.

God is just a possibility that some people choose to trust in.

That is not true. Possibility must be demonstrated.

Probably because doing so works in a positive way for them, in their lives.

Irrelavent

And if they can do it, so can you.

Not true. And irrelevant

But only if you want it.

Wants are irrelevant.

 

[ppp]

Look around

Not good enough.

 

[Twilight Hue]

You say that there is a god, but irrespective of whether or not there actually is, why should I be convinced that you know or are even capable of knowing such a thing?

Theists have so much detail to talk about, but can't even explain how those details came about.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Sure. "Know" can be a tricky word. In this case I am using it to mean being strongly convinced by non fallacious reasoning and strong enough evidence to reach a rationally justified conclusion.

In answer to your question then, God is a personal ontological conclusion that people draw from personal experiences in their life. It wouldn't convince you that God exists, of course, because you don't share those specific experiences and/or conclusions. But that would be my answer to your question in the OP: why should I be convinced that you know God exists?

Essentially, you don't have to be convinced that I have strong objective evidence, because I don't have any.

Cool name, BTW

Thank you! I wish I understood the meaning behind 'ppp' to say the same

 

[ppp]

Why would you doubt your own experience?

Why shouldn't I?

What further evidence would you require to validate your experience?

The experience is not evidence of its cause. The cause needs its own evidence.

Are you not convinced that you're having an experience of a discourse with me? If not, what further evidence do you need?

I am convinced that I am having a conversation with an agent that is capable of having a conversation. And your question about "further evidence" ignores the body of prior evidence that I already possess that there are agents capable of having a conversation. I do not need evidence that you are an agent. But I would need evidence if you claimed to be a category of agent for which I have insufficient evidence. Vulcan. God. Sasquatch. Dryad. Self-Aware AI. World Mind.