Nobody should believe their alleged divine personal revelations

[atanu]

..
I find it bizarre that people always just accept their personal revelations without even questioning them. ....

I do not think anyone accepts revelations or whatever just like that.

Can you transfer your sense of feeling 'bizarre' to any other person? Can you transfer to any other person the taste of that mango you ate yesterday? Can you explain to a person, who has never tasted a mango, its stupendous taste? But two or more people can share a mango and agree that it tastes stupendous.

Similarly, there are people who can observe their own mind and its contents,. They can suspend their thoughts ad see the nature and form of a thoughtless mind. Some such people may agree on their findings and experiences. But these meditators cannot explain their revelations to you.

 

[serp777]

If you wanted the person to verify his divine revelation, what would you accept as verification of his experience being true?

Do you have criteria of what is true or false or do you automatically assume there is none; also, if thats the case, how could the believer present his side if you dont consider what he says by his criteria?

A piece of evidence that would support a divine revelation would be something external to that revelation. For instance, if God re arranged the stars to write the message--" I, Yahweh, exist and so and so's revelation is accurate and true, believe him/her". That would be pretty decent evidence since it would be able to be confirmed by every scientists. It could still be hyper advanced aliens, but everything we know about physics would suggest that kind of manipulation is impossible, so it would be good evidence for God and for supporting the divine revelation. Not confirmation but i'd probably believe.

Do you have criteria of what is true or false or do you automatically assume there is none

Criteria of true or false? You mean with respect to divine revelation?

how could the believer present his side if you dont consider what he says by his criteria?

The criteria has to be objective and be consistent with reality and the laws of logic. It needs supporting evidence or a logically necessary argument in order to show causation.

 

[serp777]

I did not include this in revelation - the two are distinctly different to me.

I have had 4, as in four, encounters with fallen angels, one which was witnesses by about 10 people. I might, don't know, have had two encounters with angels in human form. I didn't impress anybody.

How did you determine that they were angels. Perhaps they were aliens. Also plenty of people say that they have been abducted by little green men, so i'm skeptical.

 

[serp777]

I do not think anyone accepts revelations or whatever just like that.

Can you transfer your sense of feeling 'bizarre' to any other person? Can you transfer to any other person the taste of that mango you ate yesterday? Can you explain to a person, who has never tasted a mango, its stupendous taste? But two or more people can share a mango and agree that it tastes stupendous.

Similarly, there are people who can observe their own mind and its contents,. They can suspend their thoughts ad see the nature and form of a thoughtless mind. Some such people may agree on their findings and experiences. But these meditators cannot explain their revelations to you.

if they can't explain it or justify it then there's no reason to believe it. This also doesn't address the fact that a person is, as far as i can tell, unable to prove to themselves that their personal divine revelation wasn't a deception, or trick, or experiment, or delusion.

 

[serp777]

First, I don't completely disagree with you. People can and are often deceived or tricked or fall into wishfull thinking. But I also believe in legitimate revelation from God. I believe that God is capable of revealing himself in ways that provide the same level of certainty to the receiver as one gets from seeing, touching, hearing, smelling, and/or tasting. Certainly if there is a God (which I believe) he has the power to communicate in ways, that while not understood to mere mortals, actually surpass the pedestrian human senses. That means of revelation can and does leave a sure impression on the soul that can equal or surpass any level of certainty obtained in any other way regarding any other fact.

Having said that, there is always that nagging "What if everything I experience of a physical or spiritual nature is a hallucination?" Or, "how do I know that I even exist?" Or, "what if everything I experience from God is real, but coming from a deceitful source who is playing a game or has some unknown motive?" I suppose there is no way to be 100% certain of anything if you look at it that way.

So, I have to assume that what I see and touch is real. The world is real. You and I exist. There is stuff and living things all around and I am a part of that. I bet on the fact that there is no intelligent deceiver who pretends to be God and who is communicating to people on earth. I take on faith that the very real experiences which I have, are real, that the love I feel from God is real, and the whisperings of his Spirit are real. They have proven to be so, in my mind and heart. I'm not sure I could stop believing in God. I could perhaps walk away from God and ignore him or forget him. But the impressions I have are too deep for me to ever really stop believing that he exists.

But I also believe in legitimate revelation from God. I believe that God is capable of revealing himself in ways that provide the same level of certainty to the receiver as one gets from seeing, touching, hearing, smelling, and/or tasting. Certainly if there is a God (which I believe) he has the power to communicate in ways, that while not understood to mere mortals, actually surpass the pedestrian human senses. That means of revelation can and does leave a sure impression on the soul that can equal or surpass any level of certainty obtained in any other way regarding any other fact.

yeah but an advanced alien civilization might be capable of rewiring your brain in an experiment to make you feel the same way. Or it could be that Satan is deceiving you in a long, drawn out plot to get you into hell. You're not explaining how to move past those arguments--you're just saying its correct because you feel its correct. Its circular logic.You're also begging the question--you've presupposed the existence of God and presupposed that he is capable or desires to affect you in such away. it could be that your personal revelation is a delusion and God still exists.

Having said that, there is always that nagging "What if everything I experience of a physical or spiritual nature is a hallucination?" Or, "how do I know that I even exist?" Or, "what if everything I experience from God is real, but coming from a deceitful source who is playing a game or has some unknown motive?" I suppose there is no way to be 100% certain of anything if you look at it that way.

This is the case in modern philosophy. There's no solution to the problem of hard solipsism or the problem of induction and its likely there never will be.

I bet on the fact that there is no intelligent deceiver who pretends to be God and who is communicating to people on earth

You don't know what the odds are and you likely can't rationally prove the existence of God. So its a bad bet since you don't know the odds.

I take on faith that the very real experiences which I have, are real, that the love I feel from God is real, and the whisperings of his Spirit are real.

Faith just means you believe something without any rational justification. You can believe anything on faith which is why arguments from faith are some of the weakest. I could just say that I have faith that you're wrong about everything, and we've gotten no where. Or I could just say that I have faith that your experiences are delusions.

If you had a good reason to believe you wouldn't need faith. Faith is essentially giving up, where you're admitting you're out of arguments. I also don't know why you've decided to believe based on faith for this particular claim.

 

[Grandliseur]

How did you determine that they were angels. Perhaps they were aliens. Also plenty of people say that they have been abducted by little green men, so i'm skeptical.

Let me tell you about the funniest incident, the other ones were not funny.
About 25 years ago, I was out in the preaching work. We worked the city territory in an Asian city that was assigned and were about 12 people or so. They were taking a break right next to where I and my co-worker was, and we two needed to finish an apartment. The apartment complex had a gate consisting of two iron gates closed in front of it that we needed to open. (About waist high) It could be opened by a little metal latch, but was closed as we approached it.

As we approached it, the gate began to rattle loudly, and we stopped, even the group taking a break looked at the noise the gate was making. The two of us were so surprised that we walked backwards for quite some steps. The gate stopped shaking. We looked at each other, shook our shoulders and our heads in bewilderment, and approached as before. When we reached the same approximate distance as before, the gate started rattling loudly again. This happened about 4 or 5 times in total. It became a game for me and the other one. Kind of funny you know. Well, after the last time, the demon / fallen angel got tired of playing with us and the gate didn't rattle any more when we approached it and we got inside and finished our preaching work.

Again, this was witnesses by a fairly large group of people. It was not something in my mind. We know it was a fallen angel because of the Bible's teachings.

 

[atanu]

if they can't explain it or justify it then there's no reason to believe it. This also doesn't address the fact that a person is, as far as i can tell, unable to prove to themselves that their personal divine revelation wasn't a deception, or trick, or experiment, or delusion.

What? Can you explain to another person the taste of a mango?

 

[Erebus]

How did you determine that aliens aren't experimenting on you and trying to make you believe a fairy tale?.

This bit interested me. How do you determine aliens aren't experimenting on you in general?

The criticisms you present hinge on individual experience being unreliable to the point of uselessness. Not an entirely unreasonable stance on the face of it, we know that people are prone to bias, memory decay and outright hallucinations. The problem I see with it has actually been touched on already in that personal experience is pretty much all we have to go by a good 90% or more of the time. What makes you certain that your toast in the morning is real if individual experience is useless? If you were to bring in a committee and come to an agreement that the toast is real, why do you then assume the committee itself is real?

Alien experimentation, the matrix or a great deceiver throw a spanner in the works.

I propose that all of us, atheist and theist alike, believe our own experiences far more often than we seek external verification. We also have a tendency to automatically sort things into a predefined "real" or "not real" category without actually investigating them. I would also say that we just try to do the best we can while accepting our fallibility.

Being human is akin to being a small, blind, cave-dwelling fish attempting to make sense of the world outside the caverns... also the other fish are all insane.

And the cave isn't even real.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

For instance, if God re arranged the stars to write the message--" I, Yahweh, exist and so and so's revelation is accurate and true, believe him/her"

My question would be if something arranged the stories and said it was yawah, why should we believe the claim than my saying Im a painter, with a paintbrush, but you never saw my paintings and proof that I am but what you see and what you hear?

Id say seeing is not enough proof. Unless a person is gullible to anything he sees is what he sees, I think it goes deeper than that specially with multiple religions, mythological, and fantasy books that describes these things too.

Criteria of true or false? You mean with respect to divine revelation?

Yes. Think you answered that below.

The criteria has to be objective and be consistent with reality and the laws of logic. It needs supporting evidence or a logically necessary argument in order to show causation.

The issue is, it cant. Just as you wouldnt use a calculator to verify the missing word of a sentence, you cant go off objectivity to proof something by definition is relative. You would at least get an idea of What a god is, his physical nature, etc so you have basis of comparison of whether we found something about science that hasnt yet been encounted (we dont know everything) or we are playing the assocation game.

Each religious have their own criteria for god(s) existance. If its objective, it contradicts the nature of some of the gods. Its, by definition, not something that can be proven. Plus, by which religion would have the claim for this god? If god came out and we found it wasnt jesus, I wonder what would happen. On the other hand, if it were jesus, a gox, what would Muslims and Jews say.

Its a complicated situation if youre asking for objective proof. I get the theist side but not the "atheist side".

 

[Willamena]

No its not just personal. If a God actually spoke to them than that means God is actually real, and we all share one reality. So its not just personal. Also why isn't alien experimentation of you possible in reality as you understand it? We know that humans have performed experiments on humans. We know humans have developed advanced technological societies and space craft. We know that humans evolved on a planet where it seems at least possible that life could have emerged on its own. So its at least possible for an alien civilization to emerge based on all of the facts in the universe. I'm not saying its likely but if you're postulating a being outside of time as an explanation i don't think its unreasonable to consider an alien civilization.

This still doesn't address all the other sufficient explanations, regardless, like Satan tricking you to get you to go to hell by believing something false. I can provide an infinite number of sufficient explanations. Also maybe you're developing schizophrenia--that's certainly within the realm of possibility. A portion of the population develops this mental illness, so if I start hearing voices I think that merits consideration of that diagnosis, not just blind acceptance of what the voice tell me.

We all share one reality, but that reality includes minds with strictly personal experiences.

Aliens, alien civilizations, aliens visiting Earth, and aliens experimenting on us are all possible, but that reality is an alien experiment isn't possible. The alien experiment/devil manipulator/brain in a vat/Matrix theory is dismissible because it relies on a model of mind-brain that isn't supportable, namely that thoughts are actual things interior to us rather than the normal operation of a brain in the world. It lifts thoughts away from brain activity and considers them an "interior," and the real world "exterior" to them. But thoughts are not separate from the world in that way, they are in the world and they are the world. Even the strictly personal experiences are the world: ironically, the brain in a vat fails because thought IS brain activity and not something more.

 

[Willamena]

For myself, my revelation of god came shortly around a realization of the illusion that separates interior from exterior, so it's quite fitting that the brain in a vat argument should arise.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

By that reasoning nobody can be certain that anything they perceive through any source, sense, thought process, or feeling, no matter how logical, scientific, or rational it may seem, is real.

That's pretty much the definition of an agnostic, and of the ancient kind of philosophy called skepticism...doubt about what there is to know, and how we know it.

Personally, as an agnostic and skeptic, I look at what I experience and learn largely in a pragmatic way--test what I experience and learn...if it works, accept that it works to the degree that it works, and understand that my understanding may be incorrect about what it is that is working, etc.

If it doesn't work at all, after multiple attempts, relegate that experience/knowledge to the pile of experiences and knowing that doesn't work, and move on.

As an example from my life: I like the idea of do-it-yourself around my house and around my car. I understand what the tools are used for, and try to use them, but almost inevitably what I do doesn't work at all, or works so poorly that I end up having to turn to someone else to do it.

After decades of attempting DIY, I have reached the stage where it is clearly more pragmatic...cheaper in the long run and less headache for me...just to turn to a professional to begin with.

Pragmatically, I am not a DIYer, and despite many people telling me, "Oh, that's easy!" are perhaps telling me from their own experience and knowing, not realizing that my position is rooted deeply in my experience and knowing.

 

[serp777]

My question would be if something arranged the stories and said it was yawah, why should we believe the claim than my saying Im a painter, with a paintbrush, but you never saw my paintings and proof that I am but what you see and what you hear?

Id say seeing is not enough proof. Unless a person is gullible to anything he sees is what he sees, I think it goes deeper than that specially with multiple religions, mythological, and fantasy books that describes these things too.



Yes. Think you answered that below.



The issue is, it cant. Just as you wouldnt use a calculator to verify the missing word of a sentence, you cant go off objectivity to proof something by definition is relative. You would at least get an idea of What a god is, his physical nature, etc so you have basis of comparison of whether we found something about science that hasnt yet been encounted (we dont know everything) or we are playing the assocation game.

Each religious have their own criteria for god(s) existance. If its objective, it contradicts the nature of some of the gods. Its, by definition, not something that can be proven. Plus, by which religion would have the claim for this god? If god came out and we found it wasnt jesus, I wonder what would happen. On the other hand, if it were jesus, a gox, what would Muslims and Jews say.

Its a complicated situation if youre asking for objective proof. I get the theist side but not the "atheist side".

My question would be if something arranged the stories and said it was yawah, why should we believe the claim than my saying Im a painter, with a paintbrush, but you never saw my paintings and proof that I am but what you see and what you hear?

I don't understand what you're saying. My point isn't that id have absolute certainty that it was in fact yahweh or the the person actually had a revelation, but I would consider it strong evidence considering that it seems unlikely that advanced aliens would be able to defy the laws of physics as we know them. So a God therefore seems, at the very least, probable.

The issue is, it cant. Just as you wouldnt use a calculator to verify the missing word of a sentence, you cant go off objectivity to proof something by definition is relative. You would at least get an idea of What a god is, his physical nature, etc so you have basis of comparison of whether we found something about science that hasnt yet been encounted (we dont know everything) or we are playing the assocation game.

Based on that we have no good reason to believe it.

 

[serp777]

We all share one reality, but that reality includes minds with strictly personal experiences.

Aliens, alien civilizations, aliens visiting Earth, and aliens experimenting on us are all possible, but that reality is an alien experiment isn't possible. The alien experiment/devil manipulator/brain in a vat/Matrix theory is dismissible because it relies on a model of mind-brain that isn't supportable, namely that thoughts are actual things interior to us rather than the normal operation of a brain in the world. It lifts thoughts away from brain activity and considers them an "interior," and the real world "exterior" to them. But thoughts are not separate from the world in that way, they are in the world and they are the world. Even the strictly personal experiences are the world: ironically, the brain in a vat fails because thought IS brain activity and not something more.

We all share one reality, but that reality includes minds with strictly personal experiences.

As soon as your personal experience starts giving you facts about reality, then its no longer personal and applies to others.

Aliens, alien civilizations, aliens visiting Earth, and aliens experimenting on us are all possible, but that reality is an alien experiment isn't possible. The alien experiment/devil manipulator/brain in a vat/Matrix theory is dismissible because it relies on a model of mind-brain that isn't supportable, namely that thoughts are actual things interior to us rather than the normal operation of a brain in the world.

I have a lot of problems with this. First of all I don't accept that alien experimentation isn't possible in reality. You admit its possible, and then say in reality is not possible. Perhaps you can clear things up because i'm having difficulty understand this first sentence. Also I don't accept that those theories rely on a model of mind-brain that isn't supportable. How do you know this? It doesn't even make any claims about mind-brain models. If God can affect your brain/soul with a personal revelation than so can a trickster devil. Furthermore, we don't have a full explanation for the brain and consciousness, so I don't know how you can say which mind-brain model is supportable or not except for those directly contradicting science.

 

[Willamena]

As soon as your personal experience starts giving you facts about reality, then its no longer personal and applies to others.

That's just unreasonable. Some things really are no one else's business.

Additionally, personal experiences can happen and never be revealed for others to concern themselves with, as in the case of secrets kept.

I have a lot of problems with this. First of all I don't accept that alien experimentation isn't possible in reality. You admit its possible, and then say in reality is not possible. Perhaps you can clear things up because i'm having difficulty understand this first sentence. Also I don't accept that those theories rely on a model of mind-brain that isn't supportable. How do you know this? It doesn't even make any claims about mind-brain models. If God can affect your brain/soul with a personal revelation than so can a trickster devil. Furthermore, we don't have a full explanation for the brain and consciousness, so I don't know how you can say which mind-brain model is supportable or not except for those directly contradicting science.

I said that alien experimentation is possible, and of course that means in reality. I then said it's not possible that [this] reality [of ours] is the result of an alien experiment (or a god or a devil from beyond reality). If that were so, then the alien would be real and a part of the reality it is proposed to create. It's circular.

The second part was the dive into artificial realities, but if that's not the direction that this conversation was meant to go, I'll withdraw. Suffice it to say that devil manipulation, schizophrenia, and hallucination are necessarily insufficient as long as the relation of the personal experience is within the realm of possibility.

 

[serp777]

That's just unreasonable. Some things really are no one else's business.

Additionally, personal experiences can happen and never be revealed for others to concern themselves with, as in the case of secrets kept.


I said that alien experimentation is possible, and of course that means in reality. I then said it's not possible that [this] reality [of ours] is the result of an alien experiment (or a god or a devil from beyond reality). If that were so, then the alien would be real and a part of the reality it is proposed to create. It's circular.

The second part was the dive into artificial realities, but if that's not the direction that this conversation was meant to go, I'll withdraw. Suffice it to say that devil manipulation, schizophrenia, and hallucination are necessarily insufficient as long as the relation of the personal experience is within the realm of possibility.

That's just unreasonable. Some things really are no one else's business.

How is that unreasonable? its my business if its about our shared reality.

. I then said it's not possible that [this] reality [of ours] is the result of an alien experiment (or a god or a devil from beyond reality). If that were so, then the alien would be real and a part of the reality it is proposed to create. It's circular.

No see that wasn't the claim. I didn't propose that the world that we experience altogether is an alien experiment or the matrix or a trick from the devil. I was merely suggesting that a specific personal revelation could be an alien experiment--E.G. that one particular experience. In my hypothesis that alien or devil would be apart of the shared reality. The only thing I was proposing was the deception would be that one revelation.I'm not proposing creating realities here.

Suffice it to say that devil manipulation, schizophrenia, and hallucination are necessarily insufficient as long as the relation of the personal experience is within the realm of possibility.

I'm not seeing how they're necessarily insufficient. They seem to be perfectly sufficient explanations for a supposed divine revelation. If you're proposing that a God explain the revelation, then why is it insufficient to propose that a devil explains the revelation.

 

[Willamena]

How is that unreasonable? its my business if its about our shared reality.

Because experiences do not have to be shared or sharable to be real. I could experience something entirely personal, tell no one, and the world goes on just as it always has.

No see that wasn't the claim. I didn't propose that the world that we experience altogether is an alien experiment or the matrix or a trick from the devil. I was merely suggesting that a specific personal revelation could be an alien experiment--E.G. that one particular experience. In my hypothesis that alien or devil would be apart of the shared reality. The only thing I was proposing was the deception would be that one revelation.I'm not proposing creating realities here.

As I suspected, I was off track. I read that it was an experience being created by the alien scientists, but you are likely referring to inducing.

I'm not seeing how they're necessarily insufficient. They seem to be perfectly sufficient explanations for a supposed divine revelation.

The explanations are insufficient if they contradict the narrative of the experiencer, if they violate his/her experience, if they have not been shown to actually occur, and if they are entirely make-belief.

If you're proposing that a God explain the revelation, then why is it insufficient to propose that a devil explains the revelation.

Because only one will fit the narrative.

 

[Muffled]

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.

I believe you are correct that a person can hear many voices and only one voice is God's voice.

I believe a divine revelation can be proven.

I believe the Bible is a good guide for what is likely and unlikely.

I believe God always speaks the truth to believers.

I believe your reasoning is circular but mine is not. God does not exist because of personal revelation but I know God exists because He answered when I called upon Him and because the Bible says so. However I know the personal revelation is true because it is what one would expect to be true. For instance if a voice tells me that one and one make two then I recognize that as truth. If a voice tells me that one and one makes eight then I know the voice is false.

 

[Muffled]

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.

I have been asked to get a word from God by people as to which church they should attend. When I tell them and it turns out to be a church that would be outside their usual lifestyle they ignore the word.

 

[serp777]

This bit interested me. How do you determine aliens aren't experimenting on you in general?

The criticisms you present hinge on individual experience being unreliable to the point of uselessness. Not an entirely unreasonable stance on the face of it, we know that people are prone to bias, memory decay and outright hallucinations. The problem I see with it has actually been touched on already in that personal experience is pretty much all we have to go by a good 90% or more of the time. What makes you certain that your toast in the morning is real if individual experience is useless? If you were to bring in a committee and come to an agreement that the toast is real, why do you then assume the committee itself is real?

Alien experimentation, the matrix or a great deceiver throw a spanner in the works.

I propose that all of us, atheist and theist alike, believe our own experiences far more often than we seek external verification. We also have a tendency to automatically sort things into a predefined "real" or "not real" category without actually investigating them. I would also say that we just try to do the best we can while accepting our fallibility.

Being human is akin to being a small, blind, cave-dwelling fish attempting to make sense of the world outside the caverns... also the other fish are all insane.

And the cave isn't even real.

This bit interested me. How do you determine aliens aren't experimenting on you in general?

You can't determine that, but there's no evidence that's the case so I have no reason to believe it.

The criticisms you present hinge on individual experience being unreliable to the point of uselessness.

Actually that's not the point. I don't doubt the experience itself occured--i'm just denying that the cause was a divine being, and there's certainly no way to prove it. Just because you had an experience doesn't mean the content of that experience is correct.

What makes you certain that your toast in the morning is real if individual experience is useless?

Number one i'm not certain-- I don't accept absolute certainty at all. Furthermore its not useless, but given the claim and implications, I can assign a confidence level to the reality of that experience, just as you would i'm sure. The experience that a crack addict has when high on 5 drugs is much less reliable than the experience of me getting a pet dog given that we know getting a pet dog is common and its a pretty mundane thing to accept. Now it could still be wrong, but my confidence is going to be much higher given the reality i'm exposed to as well as the circumstances. Furthermore, as i've mentioned, this is besides the point kind of--my position is that I'm not doubting the experience occured, but rather that the content of the experience is valid and implies something real.

I propose that all of us, atheist and theist alike, believe our own experiences far more often than we seek external verification.

I agree, but are you going to accept any experience as worthy of equal consideration? No, the content of experiences should be doubted depending on the circumstances and what the experience is.