Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sherapy

2+2=4 equates a certainty of god

1,115 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

danielost

QUOTE (Supra Sheri @ Jul 10 2008, 01:50 AM)

i get this Daniel but me being female, dosent automatically create a foregone conclusion there is a god... not to mention I can see

by looking I have female parts, i have many ways available to support this but thats all it supports or shows is that certain labels equate female......it doesn't warrant a leap to certainlty of purple dragons....

=======================================================================

No you didn't get what I was saying Iamson is as convinced that there is a god as you are that your female.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
At a certain point there is a matter of spillover, where that persons personal beliefs and relationship with their god go too far and get tangled up with other people that should not be involved. We see splillover here in the US all of the time where the religious right is so sure of their relationship with their god(That is is the right thing) that they try to enact laws and ordanances based on those religious beliefs; things that effect millions of people that have nothing to do with that personal relationship with their god. They are so sure they are right that they are going to muscle their way into things that effect others that do not have the belief system, or have a different belief system.

But thats the "democratic " right of anyone who has a knowledge or belief based view of life. Its the role of the stae/society to balance opposing viewpoints. Personally id like to live in a society where everyone believed like me( it would be a very small society but very cohesive)

However i have to live ina multicultural mult religious multi ethical society. ( i guess pluralist is the technical word)

I will fight damn hard to have society reflect my views.

But if im not successful, i have to respect the views of the majority, and confine any further protests, by me, to the acceptable parameters for protest decided by the society, (or continue more rigorous protest and expect punitive sanctions by the state).Only my personal ethics, as guided by my personal beliefs, can inform me on this, and what to do.

IF enough people in America became fundamentalist christians, then America society could democratically morph into something you felt very uncomfortable with. What would you do then, and how far would you be prepared to go in professing and protesting your own beliefs and values? I guess many christians today are living very uncomfortably in a society which they see as promoting quite harmful beliefs and practises.

In the end, how much anyone can express or live by their religious(or other) beliefs, comes down to the nature of the society they live in, how tolerant it is ,and how robust it is( a more robust society can tolerate more differences with out self destructing or serious damage)

Many people circumvent this problem by living, physically or socially, within societies of like minded people, so that while their nation may not live by/reflect their views, their true society does.

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IamsSon

Great post Mr. W. :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
So, please explain to me, how do you know its a universal truth then?
/

Lets keep an open mind and look at a non religious scenario. Suppose one day im walking down the street, minding my own business, and a space ship lands. A little green being pops out and says "howdy mate, heard you just got diagnosed with terminal cancer. Youre in luck i'm feeling good today and my first aid box just happens to have a cancer- curer, sonic ray as part of its contents."

He zaps me, and disappears. No one else sees him, but the doctors confirm my cancer is gone.

I now know that little green aliens, with advanced technology are real. My doctors only know my cancer has gone. I can never prove my experience.

This does not however invalidate it, or make it non real. Some where, at least one little green alien exists. The nature of his technology leads me to logically determine there is a considerable infrastructure and social structure behind him. But that one little green alien is a unversal truth, even if no one else realises it/knows it.

To me, thats my experience of god.

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
I have spoken often of the arrogance of "the believers." Your comments simply verify this point.

Those who are the "insiders" and "hear" God are the ones who are not confused. But the "outsiders" who do not hear God are confused and without the "ability" to hear God.

But maybe the "insiders" are so confused about life itself that they "hear" God. Maybe the "outsiders" live in a real world where God has not spoken in countless centuries. In a real world where someone like George Bush says that he hears God and was told to kill more than 150,000 innocents in Iraq.

In that real world, hearing God does not reflect much contact with those realities. But then, I might be confused, right?

You are the one who is applying judgement/values.The person who you replied to said "ï believe" and then made basically value neutral statements.

Life/experience history/writings show us that Some people experience mystical psychic supernatural paranormal experiences almost as much as they experience world as experienced by the majority. Some l;ike me experience enough of these things to know and have evidence that they are indisputably real/objective experiences(but not enough to make a living out of them) Othere experience flashes so clear and true as to be compelling, but very rarely. Some(perhaps the majority, although i actually expect not) never experience any of these.

There are many posible reasons for this difference. One is a difference ion receptivity, where some peole are physically or spiritually more receptive. Another is external influences. Innerspace argues a statistical correlation between fault lines and psychic/paranormal receptivity for example. A third possibility is intent of the broad caster. it is possible that certain things are being broadcast directly to certain individuals. My experience is that the sentience which is part of god is broadcasting/communicating constantly, and that we sometimes piggy back on these "carrier waves" allowing things like esp between peole. Also "god" does seem to commnicate more with those who posses physical receptivity. but whether this is simply because they are receptive or whether he targets them for communication purposes i dont know.

In every case these things just are. To feel bitter or angry about it is like feeling bitter about being born white or very short. It is not helpful or productive. If you truly feel this way; study, learn and apply a range of techniques which might improve your receptivity.

Lucid dreaming is an excellent star,t as it opens links betweeen the conscious and sub conscious minds and makes both parts of them aware of the other. Thus, if you are receiving messages subconsiously, you can train your conscious mind to be aware of them. I have done this since early childhood, and it is one possible physical reason why I have experienced so many psychic/paranormal/supernatural/spiritual events.

I have worked hard to open my mind and learn to recognise and respond to ordinary psychic episodes. I think this is one reason why god was able to manifest so strikingly and often in my life.(This does not mean that all experiences are purely subjective/ subconscious, as some demonstrate physical manifestations observable by others, but mental communication, person to person or god to person, i think is a similar /linked ability) In either case you need to prove the validity of the experience through active interrrogation and analysis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
personal experience doesn't count sorry,

daniel thankyou that is what we have been saying all along..... :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danielost
daniel thankyou that is what we have been saying all along..... :D

That is right personal experience doesn't count there is no Australia. Those of you living there are living on the ocean or in the ocean.

Edited by danielost

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dr. D
personal experience doesn't count sorry,

I sincerely hope you're joking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IamsSon
/

Lets keep an open mind and look at a non religious scenario. Suppose one day im walking down the street, minding my own business, and a space ship lands. A little green being pops out and says "howdy mate, heard you just got diagnosed with terminal cancer. Youre in luck i'm feeling good today and my first aid box just happens to have a cancer- curer, sonic ray as part of its contents."

He zaps me, and disappears. No one else sees him, but the doctors confirm my cancer is gone.

I now know that little green aliens, with advanced technology are real. My doctors only know my cancer has gone. I can never prove my experience.

This does not however invalidate it, or make it non real. Some where, at least one little green alien exists. The nature of his technology leads me to logically determine there is a considerable infrastructure and social structure behind him. But that one little green alien is a unversal truth, even if no one else realises it/knows it.

To me, thats my experience of god.

Great analogy!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
That is right personal experience doesn't count there is no Australia. Those of you living there are living on the ocean or in the ocean.

daniel I am sorry i meant that if personal experince doesnt count for anything we wouldn't be having this discussion... the whole basis of a belief in god is 'personal experience'........its can be called the ontological argument.. that you can argue from reason alone.....at one time we thought that and we have great arguments to support this ST. Anslem and Decartes but this is no longer the case.....

Edited by Supra Sheri

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dr. D

You are the one who is applying judgement/values.The person who you replied to said "ï believe" and then made basically value neutral statements.

With all respect Walker, I wholly disagree. Comments like, "People like Sheri have no ability," cannot be whitewashed away by prefacing it with "I believe." It lacks all objectivity and clearly represents the arrogance I mentioned and opposed.

Life/experience history/writings show us that Some people experience mystical psychic supernatural paranormal experiences almost as much as they experience world as experienced by the majority. Some l;ike me experience enough of these things to know and have evidence that they are indisputably real/objective experiences(but not enough to make a living out of them) Othere experience flashes so clear and true as to be compelling, but very rarely. Some(perhaps the majority, although i actually expect not) never experience any of these.

I assume you are addressing the issue of "hearing God?" If not, never did I speak about psychic experiences or the supernatural. If so, then we have more to discuss.

In every case these things just are. To feel bitter or angry about it is like feeling bitter about being born white or very short. It is not helpful or productive. If you truly feel this way; study, learn and apply a range of techniques which might improve your receptivity.

I am at a loss with your comment "To feel bitter or angry . . . ." As for study, learning, etc. . . . I live in a 400 year old home that the entire village believes is haunted . . . I have studied in Nepal and one of my best friends is a Bon Buddhist monk . . . . I have read about and personally visited the sites contained within Scripture. I have had two 55-day permits to study in the Vatican archives. Dr. Joseph Rhine and Dr. Ian Stevenson were personal friends.

My conclusions on such matters do not come from whims or fantasies . . . I base them upon the same life experiences as do you but perhaps I am drawn to different perspectives than you. Moreover, it is an assumption that I . . . or anyone . . . would even want to "improve your receptivity" if we are not convinced that it even exists.

In saying that, I do not deny or diminish the experiences of your life or the beliefs they have formed. I respect them as I do the beliefs of all people in all places.

I have worked hard to open my mind and learn to recognise and respond to ordinary psychic episodes. I think this is one reason why god was able to manifest so strikingly and often in my life.(This does not mean that all experiences are purely subjective/ subconscious, as some demonstrate physical manifestations observable by others, but mental communication, person to person or god to person, i think is a similar /linked ability) In either case you need to prove the validity of the experience through active interrrogation and analysis.

I appreciate the fact that you have decided to attribute the messages of your experiences to God. I am certain that you find great comfort in that. I, however, believe my life experiences are created by time and people and places and simple events. I do not believe a divine hand governs or guides my existence. I firmly believe that there is a supreme power but it is not dedicated to the plights of men nor does it create them to provide secret messages.

I cannot speak with that power . . . . nor can anyone else . . . . and no one ever has. It cannot be reduced into an entity that creates and destroys, issues mandates and punishments, commands humans to enter wars or intervenes simply because words are said with folded hands or on bended knees. It is a power much greater than that and it is simply because it is.

My concept of this supreme power does not make you my adversary because you hold different beliefs. Nor does it expect or want me to conduct missions or evangelic messages in its name. But I am a good person because I want to be good. I harm no one because I have no need or desire to do harm. I do not lie or steal because it is not in my nature to do so. But I do none of these things because that power so commanded me. It is because I see that force in the wind and trees and running brooks and know that I am wonderfully a part of it and only the best of me can truly represent what it is.

So yes, I do object to the arrogance proclaiming that the select can hear God and others have no ability at all. It does not find a place in the realities I have come to know where we regard others with the respect I have given to your beliefs and demean no one . . . not even those with no beliefs at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TheKnight
does it make you feel better saying you Do Know? while others apparently cannot?

I believe that you could if you wanted to.

does this make you feel high and mighty? being able to Know something, that cant be proven, and that you cant show to Anyone Else? saying that is a cop out. "oh, i know its real...but i cant prove it. youll have to see for yourself" weeeeeeaaak

I don't feel high or mighty about knowing something that can't be proven. Many people know things that can't be proven.

oh, and i have met everyone in the world...but i cant prove it to you.

You are immediately proved wrong in that I can go into the other room and ask my family members if they've met you. They would say no.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
/

Lets keep an open mind and look at a non religious scenario. Suppose one day im walking down the street, minding my own business, and a space ship lands. A little green being pops out and says "howdy mate, heard you just got diagnosed with terminal cancer. Youre in luck i'm feeling good today and my first aid box just happens to have a cancer- curer, sonic ray as part of its contents."

He zaps me, and disappears. No one else sees him, but the doctors confirm my cancer is gone.

I now know that little green aliens, with advanced technology are real. My doctors only know my cancer has gone. I can never prove my experience.

This does not however invalidate it, or make it non real. Some where, at least one little green alien exists. The nature of his technology leads me to logically determine there is a considerable infrastructure and social structure behind him. But that one little green alien is a unversal truth, even if no one else realises it/knows it.

To me, thats my experience of god.

MW i see the effort you put into this analogy and appreciate your input as always ..

yet if i may, I see some flaws with your analogy....

whenever we are gonna infer( guessing) from analogy it has to meet a minimum of requirements .. so let me just mention what a valid analogy may look like..

of course coherence is a biggie, as well as that the inference is beleivable not in the realm of fantasy..

perhaps it has consistent characteristics so that the characters if you will act in character....

resonance/rapport, the reader can relate to it surely helps alot............

Mainly: Inferences from form recognize the difference between deductive certainty and that the reality that they claim, follows wth a degree of probability...

I hope this helps....

Edited by Supra Sheri

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
You are the one who is applying judgement/values.The person who you replied to said "ï believe" and then made basically value neutral statements.

With all respect Walker, I wholly disagree. Comments like, "People like Sheri have no ability," cannot be whitewashed away by prefacing it with "I believe." It lacks all objectivity and clearly represents the arrogance I mentioned and opposed.

Life/experience history/writings show us that Some people experience mystical psychic supernatural paranormal experiences almost as much as they experience world as experienced by the majority. Some l;ike me experience enough of these things to know and have evidence that they are indisputably real/objective experiences(but not enough to make a living out of them) Othere experience flashes so clear and true as to be compelling, but very rarely. Some(perhaps the majority, although i actually expect not) never experience any of these.

I assume you are addressing the issue of "hearing God?" If not, never did I speak about psychic experiences or the supernatural. If so, then we have more to discuss.

In every case these things just are. To feel bitter or angry about it is like feeling bitter about being born white or very short. It is not helpful or productive. If you truly feel this way; study, learn and apply a range of techniques which might improve your receptivity.

I am at a loss with your comment "To feel bitter or angry . . . ." As for study, learning, etc. . . . I live in a 400 year old home that the entire village believes is haunted . . . I have studied in Nepal and one of my best friends is a Bon Buddhist monk . . . . I have read about and personally visited the sites contained within Scripture. I have had two 55-day permits to study in the Vatican archives. Dr. Joseph Rhine and Dr. Ian Stevenson were personal friends.

My conclusions on such matters do not come from whims or fantasies . . . I base them upon the same life experiences as do you but perhaps I am drawn to different perspectives than you. Moreover, it is an assumption that I . . . or anyone . . . would even want to "improve your receptivity" if we are not convinced that it even exists.

In saying that, I do not deny or diminish the experiences of your life or the beliefs they have formed. I respect them as I do the beliefs of all people in all places.

I have worked hard to open my mind and learn to recognise and respond to ordinary psychic episodes. I think this is one reason why god was able to manifest so strikingly and often in my life.(This does not mean that all experiences are purely subjective/ subconscious, as some demonstrate physical manifestations observable by others, but mental communication, person to person or god to person, i think is a similar /linked ability) In either case you need to prove the validity of the experience through active interrrogation and analysis.

I appreciate the fact that you have decided to attribute the messages of your experiences to God. I am certain that you find great comfort in that. I, however, believe my life experiences are created by time and people and places and simple events. I do not believe a divine hand governs or guides my existence. I firmly believe that there is a supreme power but it is not dedicated to the plights of men nor does it create them to provide secret messages.

I cannot speak with that power . . . . nor can anyone else . . . . and no one ever has. It cannot be reduced into an entity that creates and destroys, issues mandates and punishments, commands humans to enter wars or intervenes simply because words are said with folded hands or on bended knees. It is a power much greater than that and it is simply because it is.

My concept of this supreme power does not make you my adversary because you hold different beliefs. Nor does it expect or want me to conduct missions or evangelic messages in its name. But I am a good person because I want to be good. I harm no one because I have no need or desire to do harm. I do not lie or steal because it is not in my nature to do so. But I do none of these things because that power so commanded me. It is because I see that force in the wind and trees and running brooks and know that I am wonderfully a part of it and only the best of me can truly represent what it is.

So yes, I do object to the arrogance proclaiming that the select can hear God and others have no ability at all. It does not find a place in the realities I have come to know where we regard others with the respect I have given to your beliefs and demean no one . . . not even those with no beliefs at all.

EX, this moved me to tears my freind.....this is truly beautiful.....I am deeply touched by your insights and wisdom. you speak in a the same way that my breath is taken away by a sunset or the view of the ocean or the way the light hits my sons beautiful blue eyes.... .... :tsu::tsu::tsu::tsu::clap::clap::clap::nw::nw::nw::nw:

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
how about Man ? not being able to answer questions like what happens after we die ? very logical. that would soothe and give hope. but that doesn't make it real. and as time goes on this myth becomes ingrained into our psyche as a culture. Man tends to make up answers for questions that have no answer.

exactly lady R its part of the brains response it naturally seeks to fill in the blanks...we don't hexeprince death so how can we know other than through fanciful imaginings ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
InnerSpace

Hey Sheri, I've only gotta sec, as research as been taking up most of my time lately, but....

I just wanted to let you know that I took the time to read this thread, and it rocks, with the exception of a few unnecessary, rude comments.

Your posts are inspiring, educational and eloquent. :tsu:

You are one of the main reasons I keep coming back to UM. :wub:

btw...I agree with you...great posts by Expatriate and others. :tu:

I hope to post more when I get the time. bfn

~V

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danielost
i agree with some of this i recognize sceince for what it is and i recognize religion for what it is...

its an antiquated system that can't help us with our modern day issues, even the basic simple ones...Such as conflict resolution, parenting ( i recently got a alternative way of child care implemented for those who choose to parent in non violence and no longer use the traditonal reward/punishment methods at my local YMCA).

We are moving away from so many things that we once used because we know more.... it can't help with communication skills, understanding the world we live in or self awareness ( as it teaches one to deny the self in favor of an outside at present an invisible agent, so it really teaches dependency not self reliance or self responsibility ) ..... let alone getting along with someone who is different with you or disagrees with you ..

How about sexual differences, i am not even really getting into the fear tthat surrounds the embracing of ones sexuality that is natural to the human experience .....nope it can't help here........

gosh, the issues we have now with global warming and the things to solve them religion can't help yet it claims it can,it claims it can do alot of things that it just can't...... .....

often through the suggestion to pray, well prayer imo is the same as doing nothing ..don't you think its to get up and be the changes get proactive and responsible fro ourselves..............

finally, one of its major trips is to exclude so many if not all the other disicplines as useless and absurd..such as science and evolution for cripes sake....( not all christians do this but alot do) .we can read many threads on here to support this posit....

this leads to ignorance not effectiveness IMO ... ..........

Now not all christians adhere to this of course there is a wonderful side many redefining the face of religion in many ways and I am all for it to be honest , we are moving away from a fear based construct, an arrogance based posit and i credit the religious for stepping up to the plate those that do .. in support of these changes.....and i think its gonna be alot more too ...it will have to or religion cannot survive in its current form ....

jorel .if you dig the ritual and tradition of a religion, hey great for you and I sincerely mean this .....

if anything i'd say buddhism is the hot new movement, diesm and agnostism is huge. Paganism is popular with the young ones...coming up ... ..

i think its time to celebrate our growing pains, to look forward to growing up thats what man is doing he is growing up and in the process somethings aren't gonna be useful anymore but new things replace them... this is life this is incredible change is life........there are so many alternatives, i myself have a blast checking them all out i always walk away richer for it but I dont have to sign on any dotted lines and its all good......

You see I have to disagree with you here ma'am.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
drakonwick
You see I have to disagree with you here ma'am.

What works for some, may not work so well for others.

It really is that simple Daniel, it's called personal preference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
You see I have to disagree with you here ma'am.

daniel , I am okay with that it means you are thinking for yourself deciding for yourself.....way to go...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danielost
daniel , I am okay with that it means you are thinking for yourself deciding for yourself.....way to go...

I never follow anyone or thing blindly. For instance I didn't back bush because he was the best man for the job but because he wasn't the worse twice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mklsgl

Quote, Mr Walker: "This does not however invalidate it, or make it non real. Some where, at least one little green alien exists. The nature of his technology leads me to logically determine there is a considerable infrastructure and social structure behind him. But that one little green alien is a unversal truth, even if no one else realises it/knows it.

To me, thats my experience of god."

------------------------------------------

With all due respect Mr. Walker, this analogy is does not amount to a universal truth. It's a personal experience that only proves something to you, the experiencer. There are no universal truths because we, as a society, do not wholly understand the universe. I witnessed a murder. I was the sole eyewitness. However, I, alone, could not prove that the murder occurred. Certainly it seemed to me that no other evidence was necessary; I saw the entire incident--from the beginning to the end--yet, that was not enough. I knew that it happened, just as 2+2=4, but my testimony could only be used as one link in a chain of evidence, to 'back' my testimony, my claims, in order to achieve truth as proof.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
Im sorry if this has been addressed in the 14 intervening pages. This post has just grown like topsy.

I will get to read them, But daniels q and supras response illustrated to me perfectly how i know god exists. My knowledge consists of two parts. a definition and then evidence/criteria that meets that definition.

It probably doesnt matter which you tackle first, but lets take definition "god" is a generic form like female. Just as there are many shapes forms etc which still qualify as female, so there are a variety of shapes and forms which qualify as god. All are simply social labels designed for definition and ease of communications. None the less, to be female you must meet certain specific criteria, and definitely not meet others.

The same with god. To meet the accepted classical or culturaly acceptable definition, you must meet certain criteria. These are slightly less clear than those for being female, but might include.

The ability to manipulate the universe in ways which appear magical (in fact they may be achieved by science or through the innate nature of god)

The ability to exist, apart from linear time (thus appearing to have no beginning and no end,) and perhaps actually having an extremely long life.

Another attribute of a god is usually that they display interest in and involvement with sentient beings. Thus, they are sentient them selves, and display certain, probably universal, sentient qualities like; curiousity creativity etc.

People have often constructed the idea of gods which are omniscient and omnipotent, particularly the abrahamic versions, but this is actually not possible given the nature of the universe, and the other definition of god, in intervening in sentient's lives. A god which is universal, and omnipetent, and omniscient, would have no need to intervene in something he already knew the outcomes for.

The most interesting question is, how did these common criteria for god arrive? Those without any experience of god will tend to claim that they are purely human constructs, modelled on the nature of humanity, and employed for many psychological purposes some valid, some not so.

But those who have experienced god, in any of the diverse forms he manifests, recognise something else. There is a general commonality in the contacts which leads to a generalised but recognisable set of criteria for god. So for us, the construction of criteria for god is not an intellectual exercise based on what we should like to see god as, but one of comparing our own experiences, with the recorded experiences of others so that we can get an accurate general description

This is of course how a definition for female comes about. It is constructed from the experiences of people, who then come to a commonly acccepted definition. If i want to find out if some one is female, I can either experience her for myself or check her out against that common criteria. And so people can do with god. What i cannot accurately do, is construct an idealised definition of female, if it actually contradicts the basic definition, based on observation etc of what a female is.

That brings us to the second part of how my knowledge of god evolved. It was like my knowledge of females. In gods case, i had the experiences first then did the research, verification and social background, second.

In the case of females, i started with äcademic research Eg, play boy, checked the commonly accepted definitions, social backgrounds and expectations next,(through general social interaction and real academic research,) and only finally got round to physical verification.

But, both with god and with females, i know they exist, because we have a commonly accepted definition, and because both research and personal experience show that something exists which meets those criteria.

In my case those experiences are both quite unusual and compelling. Many people never have one such experience, let alone a life time of them.

(here i must, somewhat sadly, point out that i am talking about my experiences with god, not with females, which is another story completely)

However, many of these people seem to come to that same 2+2= 4, knowledge of god, through a varied combination of, the socially accepted model of god meeting their life experiences, and perhaps a more spiritual, (real but not physical) manifestation of god in their lives.

The people i admire the most, but cannot comprehend, are those like my wife ,who never have any physical proof of god in their lives, and yet have such an absolute knowledge of gods existence that they would happily die for that faith based knowledge. I also would happily die for god, but only because i know he exists through physical evidence in my life. I could not do so for faith, no matter how strongly held.

mw quotes....

" my wife ,who never have any physical proof of god in their lives, and yet have such an absolute knowledge of gods existence that they would happily die for that faith based knowledge"

you say its a faith based knowledge , and I concur religious faith constitutes its own paradigm , using the canons of "evidence ' and argument can only operate within them not upon them or outside of them as we see this with this thread... .. at best you can validate your faith based system and at this benchmark( faith) this is precisely what you are doing........ .

In this relgious paradigm faith and evidence have very little to do with each other, literally .. faith is what gives one the free pass for one to move beyond the need for evidence and arguments ( but this only works if you have no others pov to contend with ) or this system insists that faith must be set aside if true religious insight and knowing are to occur..... well this is how we see that god works 'within' the paradigm not upon it, because its the paradigm in which one operates that determines what it is, what its not and how its intelligible and how one sets the boundries for truth and falsehood.....I'm using your rules and definitions do you understand Mr Walker????

what you dont see is that you are agreeing to the condtions and rules and frame/context of the beleif system called religion/god it is a definition you have been taught ... its the religious beleif structure .. you are simply following the rules.... Faith is simply an agreement to adhere to a 'fixed' idea that has been pre determined for you .. this is why IMO god is a mental construction.... ..

I didnt touch on the god sightings but I can if you would like....

Edited by Supra Sheri

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IamsSon
Quote, Mr Walker: "This does not however invalidate it, or make it non real. Some where, at least one little green alien exists. The nature of his technology leads me to logically determine there is a considerable infrastructure and social structure behind him. But that one little green alien is a unversal truth, even if no one else realises it/knows it.

To me, thats my experience of god."

------------------------------------------

With all due respect Mr. Walker, this analogy is does not amount to a universal truth. It's a personal experience that only proves something to you, the experiencer. There are no universal truths because we, as a society, do not wholly understand the universe. I witnessed a murder. I was the sole eyewitness. However, I, alone, could not prove that the murder occurred. Certainly it seemed to me that no other evidence was necessary; I saw the entire incident--from the beginning to the end--yet, that was not enough. I knew that it happened, just as 2+2=4, but my testimony could only be used as one link in a chain of evidence, to 'back' my testimony, my claims, in order to achieve truth as proof.

Did the fact that other evidence was needed in order to condemn the murderer change the certainty you had about what you had seen? Did you suddenly realize that maybe the murder you witnessed didn't really happen?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MissMelsWell

You still mistook my meaning Expat... sorry for that. I tried to explain.

Let's face it, I'm Quaker, it's barely even considered Christian by other Christians. It's a philosophy and a lifesytle more than anything. We don't even belive the Bible is the Word of God. I do believe that people are predestined to communicate with God or not, on a certain level. It wasn't meant to be an insult. Just a statement. One that I would assume would be reassuring to Athiests.

I believe many people aren't pre-desitined to hear God. THere's nothing wrong with that.

Geeze.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dr. D
You still mistook my meaning Expat... sorry for that. I tried to explain.

Let's face it, I'm Quaker, it's barely even considered Christian by other Christians. It's a philosophy and a lifesytle more than anything. We don't even belive the Bible is the Word of God. I do believe that people are predestined to communicate with God or not, on a certain level. It wasn't meant to be an insult. Just a statement. One that I would assume would be reassuring to Athiests.

I believe many people aren't pre-desitined to hear God. THere's nothing wrong with that.

Geeze.

I have no problem with any of that. I have a problem when you can single out a person and determine that they have no ability to hear God.

Nothing within the Quaker philosophy give such divine powers to anyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.