Nobody should believe their alleged divine personal revelations

[serp777]

Its simply not possible to prove a divine revelation to yourself. How did you determine that aliens aren't experimenting on you and trying to make you believe a fairy tale? Maybe they are trying to see what they can get humans to believe by messing with certain neurotransmitters. Or maybe its Satan that's revealed himself to you and is tricking you to convince you to believe the wrong thing such that you'll go to hell. The reason these are fair considerations to bring up is because you can't determine what is likely or unlikely when it comes to the supernatural.

I find it bizarre that people always just accept their personal revelations without even questioning them. There's simply no way a personal revelation would prove the truths you supposedly learned from that revelation. Its circular reason: the personal revelation is true because it came from God/ the supernatural, and God/the supernatural exists because I got a personal revelation. Its 100% fallacious.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

It also applies to those whose "revelation" comes through a written text...

That said, whatever personal revelations or experiences I've had, have to do with ME and not with anyone else. I therefore don't share a great deal of it, and I generally do a bit of reality-checking before accepting it, anyway.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I question mine. There is this problem though that there is no way to compare it to anything else, but also when I describe it someone else said they say they know what it is. That does me no further good, because I still don't know if it is the same thing yet it is pretty memorable. Now, lets say that the personal revelation tells you about the future. Even if it is correct, you still have to wonder if it is your subconscious mind making a guess using subconscious calculations; but you can't be sure.

 

[Brickjectivity]

It also applies to those whose "revelation" comes through a written text...

That said, whatever personal revelations or experiences I've had, have to do with ME and not with anyone else. I therefore don't share a great deal of it, and I generally do a bit of reality-checking before accepting it, anyway.

For a moment I thought you were talking about Mechanical Engineering.

 

[Quintessence]

You find it bizarre that people trust in themselves?

I have no words.

 

[serp777]

It also applies to those whose "revelation" comes through a written text...

That said, whatever personal revelations or experiences I've had, have to do with ME and not with anyone else. I therefore don't share a great deal of it, and I generally do a bit of reality-checking before accepting it, anyway.

Yes of course i decided to just include personal revelations for this thread because people often come back to: "Well I had a personal revelation and that's how I know", as if its a knockdown argument. They say it shouldn't be justification for others, but if it can't be justification for others than it shouldn't be for yourself.

 

[serp777]

You find it bizarre that people trust in themselves?

I have no words.

Thats what's called a strawman argument. People are warranted in trusting themselves, generally speaking, for mundane things that are within the bounds of reality or occur frequently. Someone trusting that they did in fact get a pet dog is a massively different claim than saying aliens abducted them. Are you suggesting that a person should have equal trust in themselves for all claims, regardless of what the claim is? Do you think the world is just black and white--E.G. we should either trust ourselves or shouldn't? Wouldn't it be more reasonable to say that we should have a scale of % confidence depending on what it is. And I would also argue that people should and do doubt themselves reasonably. Humans make many mistakes and fallacies, as demonstrated by your post. I've made my fair share of mistakes so its valuable to question my self depending on the circumstances.

 

[Quintessence]

Thats what's called a strawman argument. People are warranted in trusting themselves, generally speaking, for mundane things that are within the bounds of reality or occur frequently. Someone trusting that they did in fact get a pet dog is a massively different claim than saying aliens abducted them.

Well, yes, if you're of the mindset that experiencing the gods is somehow equivalent to claiming aliens in the apparent world abducted them, you'd be right - that's strawperson. That's not how experiences of the gods work for many - if not most - theists. It's far more analagous to getting a pet dog than being abducted by aliens.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

For a moment I thought you were talking about Mechanical Engineering.

I think it works for that, too!

 

[Quintessence]

Besides, if you have an experience, the only person who can judge that experience is you unless there are other witnesses. It really is largely about trusting yourself. Nobody else is going to do your religious homework for you. Well, that's how it works in my tradition, anyway. There are no middlepersons.

 

[serp777]

Well, yes, if you're of the mindset that experiencing the gods is somehow equivalent to claiming aliens in the apparent world abducted them, you'd be right - that's strawperson. That's not how experiences of the gods work for many - if not most - theists. It's far more analagous to getting a pet dog than being abducted by aliens.

It's far more analagous to getting a pet dog than being abducted by aliens.

How did you determine that? You think being contacted by the most powerful being in the universe via supernatural means should be classified as closer to getting a pet dog? First of all aliens are within the realm of possibility. We have no idea if there's a being outside of reality from a rational basis. So what justification do you have to make the claim that a personal revelation is more of a mundane thing that we should just accept? Why is the claim of aliens experiemntation less likely than that of a supernatural, magical being communicating with you? Or why is it more likely than satan trying to trick you? And mind you, I can come up with infinitely more examples that would continue to cast doubt.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Its simply not possible to prove a divine revelation to yourself. How did you determine that aliens aren't experimenting on you and trying to make you believe a fairy tale? Maybe they are trying to see what they can get humans to believe by messing with certain neurotransmitters. Or maybe its Satan that's revealed himself to you and is tricking you to convince you to believe the wrong thing such that you'll go to hell. The reason these are fair considerations to bring up is because you can't determine what is likely or unlikely when it comes to the supernatural.

I find it bizarre that people always just accept their personal revelations without even questioning them. There's simply no way a personal revelation would prove the truths you supposedly learned from that revelation. Its circular reason: the personal revelation is true because it came from God/ the supernatural, and God/the supernatural exists because I got a personal revelation. Its 100% fallacious.

Excellent post. To be more specific, we could use an example of a recent convert to Christianity who experienced a powerful "spiritual" feeling upon converting to the religion. If we decide it is not his/her imagination (even though it most likely is) that is responsible for the feeling, then we have many other options. It could be Jesus, or it could be the Satan of any other religion that wants the person to believe in a religion contrary to that religion. Same thing with a convert to any other religion. You never know if it's the god of that religion tryin' to convert ya or the Satan of some other religion tryin' to convert you against that religion. I guess we'll have to leave it up to the various gods and satans to fight over it in the SkyGod Olympics, which will be similar to Batman vs. Superman, only with more powerful entities.

 

[serp777]

Besides, if you have an experience, the only person who can judge that experience is you unless there are other witnesses. It really is largely about trusting yourself. Nobody else is going to do your religious homework for you. Well, that's how it works in my tradition, anyway. There are no middlepersons.

Besides, if you have an experience, the only person who can judge that experience is you unless there are other witnesses.

Yes and my criticism of that would be to ask how you determined you weren't being tricked by satan or experimented on by aliens. It sure seems like circular reasoning used to assume the thing that the personal revelation is telling you is true. Even if a God exists you can't rational justify that he did send you a revelation. I mean at what point do you start to doubt yourself? If you want ot say you're being consistent with rationality, the you can't just say "Oh well I accept this truth because I trust myself", which assumes you're an infalliable little God detector who can determine real God from satan's tricks or alien experiemntation.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

I question mine. There is this problem though that there is no way to compare it to anything else, but also when I describe it someone else said they say they know what it is. That does me no further good, because I still don't know if it is the same thing yet it is pretty memorable. Now, lets say that the personal revelation tells you about the future. Even if it is correct, you still have to wonder if it is your subconscious mind making a guess using subconscious calculations; but you can't be sure.

Just call yourself an agnostic then. Safer bet anyway in case the conversion wasn't genuine and the other invisible sky-fairies are mad at you for not believing in them.

 

[serp777]

Excellent post. To be more specific, we could use an example of a recent convert to Christianity who experienced a powerful "spiritual" feeling upon converting to the religion. If we decide it is not his/her imagination (even though it most likely is) that is responsible for the feeling, then we have many other options. It could be Jesus, or it could be the Satan of any other religion that wants the person to believe in a religion contrary to that religion. Same thing with a convert to any other religion. You never know if it's the god of that religion tryin' to convert ya or the Satan of some other religion tryin' to convert you against that religion. I guess we'll have to leave it up to the various gods and satans to fight over it in the SkyGod Olympics, which will be similar to Batman vs. Superman, only with more powerful entities.

Exactly, there are an infinite number of sufficient explanations that could account for your personal revelations, because even if God does exists, that doesn't mean you aren't being tricked by Satan or experimented upon. It also assumes that the person is an infallible little God detector who can determine whether its the real God who's sending the personal revelation, and the moment you're claiming you're infalliable, the moment you've just made a claim beyond yourself and solely your personal revelation.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Exactly, there are an infinite number of sufficient explanations that could account for your personal revelations, because even if God does exists, that doesn't mean you aren't being tricked by Satan or experimented upon. It also assumes that the person is an infallible little God detector who can determine whether its the real God who's sending the personal revelation, and the moment you're claiming you're infalliable, the moment you've just made a claim beyond yourself and solely your personal revelation.

Another reason why I am becoming a true agnostic in the sense that I am becoming increasingly convinced that it is impossible for anyone to know whether or not deities exist.

 

[atanu]

......, but if it can't be justification for others than it shouldn't be for yourself.

I think you meant "....if it can't be justification for others then it shouldn't be for yourself."

 

[sayak83]

Its simply not possible to prove a divine revelation to yourself. How did you determine that aliens aren't experimenting on you and trying to make you believe a fairy tale? Maybe they are trying to see what they can get humans to believe by messing with certain neurotransmitters. Or maybe its Satan that's revealed himself to you and is tricking you to convince you to believe the wrong thing such that you'll go to hell. The reason these are fair considerations to bring up is because you can't determine what is likely or unlikely when it comes to the supernatural.

I find it bizarre that people always just accept their personal revelations without even questioning them. There's simply no way a personal revelation would prove the truths you supposedly learned from that revelation. Its circular reason: the personal revelation is true because it came from God/ the supernatural, and God/the supernatural exists because I got a personal revelation. Its 100% fallacious.

Everything is a personal revelation. The world that I see and experience may entirely be an illusion created by aliens messing with my brain. Going by your logic, nobody should believe anything they see, hear, touch and feel at all.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Its simply not possible to prove a divine revelation to yourself. How did you determine that aliens aren't experimenting on you and trying to make you believe a fairy tale? Maybe they are trying to see what they can get humans to believe by messing with certain neurotransmitters. Or maybe its Satan that's revealed himself to you and is tricking you to convince you to believe the wrong thing such that you'll go to hell. The reason these are fair considerations to bring up is because you can't determine what is likely or unlikely when it comes to the supernatural.

I find it bizarre that people always just accept their personal revelations without even questioning them. There's simply no way a personal revelation would prove the truths you supposedly learned from that revelation. Its circular reason: the personal revelation is true because it came from God/ the supernatural, and God/the supernatural exists because I got a personal revelation. Its 100% fallacious.

What is a personal revelation to You?

Can you describe it from your own experiences and research and not the testimonies who rightfully believe in things others dont believe?

 

[serp777]

Everything is a personal revelation. The world that I see and experience may entirely be an illusion created by aliens messing with my brain. Going by your logic, nobody should believe anything they see, hear, touch and feel at all.

No, no, no. Wrong. That's not my logic. #1, i've never claimed that I do trust my senses with 100% certainty. My senses have been fooled before and maybe its the case that I am in fact in the matrix. I can't prove that im not. But i accept that they are generally reliable due to practical necessity. But that doesn't mean all experiences suddenly become equivalent. If I was waking up out of surgery and anesthesia, i'd be much less likely to trust myself than if I was entirely sober and health. Furthermore, more absurd experiences require more scrutiny and doubt. Its a spectrum of confidence. Also what's your logic then? Everybody should always trust and accept all their experiences? That's the equivalent kind of strawman you just made. And im guessing you agree with me that not all personal experience is trustworthy. Would you trust yourself on mushrooms and concaine? I doubt it.