• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Is Faith Evidence of Things Not Seen?

ppp

Well-Known Member
You still have the hard problem of consciousness and whether physicalism is reductive or not for emergent properties.
I don't think I do. I have never bought it to the hard problem of consciousness. It is entirly possible that I don't understand it - and I certainly don't claim to understand consciousness - but I don't see the "hard problem"
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
There is nothing to be said about an unknowable, Nothing at all.

Correct, I believe in God, but know nothing of God, so I don't speak of God other for the purpose of metaphysics and foundational epistemology. Now sometimes in debates God do come up, but I do a kind of negative theology.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
I don't think I do. I have never bought it to the hard problem of consciousness. It is entirly possible that I don't understand it - and I certainly don't claim to understand consciousness - but I don't see the "hard problem"
For the meaning of this sentence reduces the meaning down into external sensory input and change that to scientific physical statements while not loosing the meaning.
 

ppp

Well-Known Member
Correct, I believe in God, but know nothing of God, so I don't speak of God other for the purpose of metaphysics and foundational epistemology. Now sometimes in debates God do come up, but I do a kind of negative theology.
I find it hard to take someone seriously when they tell me that they believe that something exists, but they don't know any of its characteristics. Not even that it exists. Seems like they are just playing with words to sound profound but are intentionally devoid of meaning.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
I find it hard to take someone seriously when they tell me that they believe that something exists, but they don't know any of its characteristics. Not even that it exists. Seems like they are just playing with words to sound profound but are intentionally devoid of meaning.

Well, my God is a stand in for the thing itself as itself and the first unmoved mover. It is a philosophical God and since I am in effect an epistemological solipsist, who believe objective reality is there, but know nothing of it, other than it is there, it gets weird. So I do know that the thing itself exists, but that is all, I know of it.
 

ppp

Well-Known Member
Well, my God is a stand in for the thing itself as itself and the first unmoved mover. It is a philosophical God and since I am in effect an epistemological solipsist, who believe objective reality is there, but know nothing of it, other than it is there, it gets weird. So I do know that the thing itself exists, but that is all, I know of it.
What do you mean by know in this case?
 

ppp

Well-Known Member
Okay, take physical as processes related to your body and mental as processes in your mind. Now explain everything without using mental words. Only use physical/bodily/eternal sensation words.
I think you jumped a few steps. Why would I take mental processes as being not physical?
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
What do you mean by know in this case?

Okay, test if you can control everything by using thought. You apparently can't. That which you can't control is not you. It is something else, but you only have your experience of it. What it is beyond your experience independent of your mind is unknown, because you know only through your mind. So it is there, but what it is in itself is unknown, because you only know what it is to you. I.e. epistemological solipsism.
 

ppp

Well-Known Member
Okay, test if you can control everything by using thought. You apparently can't. That which you can't control is not you. It is something else, but you only have your experience of it. What it is beyond your experience independent of your mind is unknown, because you know only through your mind. So it is there, but what it is in itself is unknown, because you only know what it is to you. I.e. epistemological solipsism.
That leads to odd conclusions. By that reasoning, they keys that I am tapping are me, and my spleen isn't.
 

ppp

Well-Known Member
Well, if you think mental process are physical, I like evidence.
You would like evidence of what? Physical processes generate effects. Fire. Color. Wetness. Thoughts. Do you think that all of those are non-physical? I would need evidence that the non-physical is a candidate explanation.
 

Sw. Vandana Jyothi

Truth is One, many are the Names
Premium Member
It is my belief as a Christian that the Creator gave us two physical eyes because these are the things that help us appreciate his creation....sending messages to the brain that often involve our other senses operating in sync to fully appreciate God;s creation.

Since the third eye is used by religious people outside of my faith, it is not something we seek or employ because the 5 senses we have are more than enough for us....and it puts us all on equal footing, spiritually speaking. We have no "holy men" in our faith, just shepherds who follow the instructions of their ONE Master....Jesus Christ. We are all then servants of the one God...Jehovah. It is a very simple faith, based entirely on the Bible.....an incredible book of God's wisdom in our opinion. :)

Yes, there is no doubt God gave us two physical eyes and other senses with which to appreciate and enjoy His creation. But He gave us a third eye to help us appreciate Him.
 
Last edited:

Sw. Vandana Jyothi

Truth is One, many are the Names
Premium Member
This may just be a semantic difference in your tradition, I'm not sure. How does one determine if the information gathered via these alternate means is accurate?

When the Truth of one's Self comes into contact with Truth Itself, both recognize what has occurred and there's no doubt about it in either's "mind."
 
Top