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 -
danydandan

Logical issues with belief.

429 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Habitat
21 minutes ago, Guyver said:

Rational relates to the mind.  Every mind is different.  So, we can only define rational based on our own understanding and that of other people.  But many people are crazy and so that takes rationality down just a notch.  We understand rational as we understand it based upon our own frame of reference.  But our frame of reference is demonstrably limited, therefore I stand by my assertion that we can’t even agree upon what “rational” really means.  If you mean rational from a subjective standpoint, fine.  But then again, that’s not really saying all that much.  What’s rational to you may not be rational to me.

Suffice to say, precognitive dreams are not explicable by known factors. Which does not make them impossible, just hard to imagine how they could be.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guyver
1 minute ago, Habitat said:

Suffice to say, precognitive dreams are not explicable by known factors. Which does not make them impossible, just hard to imagine how they could be.

Yes.  The problem is proving precognition.  It’s fine if it works for you and is a real thing, but others are not obligated to believe it just because you say you’ve experienced it.  I mean, I know I had some form of esp, or whatever you want to call it, to me it’s a real experience.  But I can’t prove the experience or the phenomenon, so people will comfortably dismiss it.  

Science doesn’t know what dark matter is, but the materialists are willing to accept it’s probably real.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
4 minutes ago, Guyver said:

Yes.  The problem is proving precognition.  It’s fine if it works for you and is a real thing, but others are not obligated to believe it just because you say you’ve experienced it.  I mean, I know I had some form of esp, or whatever you want to call it, to me it’s a real experience.  But I can’t prove the experience or the phenomenon, so people will comfortably dismiss it.  

Science doesn’t know what dark matter is, but the materialists are willing to accept it’s probably real.

Not a "problem" for me. I have no need to prove it, and if others want to dismiss it as impossible, that tells me more about them, than the matter at hand. Just a case of some people wanting to build a "fence" around reality, in their mind, and concentrating their lives on what is within their self-made fence, those of more capacious mind, probably don't feel the need to do that. Horses for courses.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye
22 minutes ago, Habitat said:

Not a "problem" for me. I have no need to prove it, and if others want to dismiss it as impossible, that tells me more about them, than the matter at hand. Just a case of some people wanting to build a "fence" around reality, in their mind, and concentrating their lives on what is within their self-made fence, those of more capacious mind, probably don't feel the need to do that. Horses for courses.

Problem is here where in that 'capacious mind' denotes what is in or what is out ?

~

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
3 minutes ago, third_eye said:

Problem is here where in that 'capacious mind' denotes what is in or what is out ?

~

The more capacious, the less need for "out" labels, much can be left "undecided", and especially if there is no pressing need to do otherwise. In the contest between what has repeatedly demonstrated itself to me, convincingly, and "conventional wisdom" that says it isn't so, the former has to prevail. I don't out-source first hand observation. If you don't trust your own senses, best to retire to the corner of the room, curl up into a ball, and start rocking back and forth. Or watch Sean Carroll fan-gathering speech videos.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
3 hours ago, Guyver said:

I do my friend.  I have studied this topic in great detail and consider myself an expert on the bible in some aspects.

The bible not only never says the Earth is flat, the exact opposite argument that I would present.  The bible presents a solar system which travels in a circuit, and the root is circle which is what orbits actually are.  An eclipse is a circle.

A literalist interpretation of that allegorical take from the Bible would have no other option but to assume Satan literally took Jesus up to the Highest hilltop. Where Jesus could see every single kingdom of the World. Logically how can one see all Kingdoms from one place on the World if the Earth wasn't flat?

4 hours ago, and then said:

Or it would mean one of the authors - 66 books, 40 writers - used metaphor?

Obviously it's a metaphor, one needs context for qouting content of the Bible. One interpretation of Matthew 4 is that it was probably a dream. Now whats the actual message? There are about four good theories.

3 hours ago, Guyver said:

Well, first of all I’d like to disagree with your first point here Dan.  I think it is entirely possible to analyze whether or not the claims of the bible being divinely inspired or completed are valid or not....and I bet if we put our heads together we could absolutely present a very logical position for or against.

For example, the bible contains many prophecies which are presented as actual prophesies and these could be considered.  If a prophecy could be proven to be accurate, then that indicates divine inspiration because the future cannot be known by humans.

Or, would you disagree and claim that future could be known by some means?

It's completely impossible to determine the claims. Why? well, we don't know the Authors, we don't know of God existence, if God's there we don't know if he can communicate. Too many unanswerable questions to determine if the Bible is literally the word of God. Don't you think?

Again, with prophecy. If it came true there is still no way of knowing if God inspired these or not. You and I know prophecy is a fickle subject, in my opinion I trust anyone claiming to be prophetic, nor do I believe in prophecy. You and I have had conversations regarding statistical analyses in the past, this I believe is a good way to determine the probability of events.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Coil
My results below, I do not quite understand what the graphics and these bullets and hits. It seems to respond logically and there should be no contradictions.
 
Spoiler

test.png

 

 

 

Edited by Coil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eight bits
1 hour ago, Habitat said:

Suffice to say, precognitive dreams are not explicable by known factors. Which does not make them impossible, just hard to imagine how they could be.

Dreams emerge from the tail pipe of the best-known pattern recognition firmware in the Universe. Nothing could be easier than to imagine how "precognitive dreams" could be.

You used to like the verb to guess. What happened? "Pre-cognitive" is a faux-sophisticated way to say "good guess."

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
5 minutes ago, eight bits said:

Dreams emerge from the tail pipe of the best-known pattern recognition firmware in the Universe. Nothing could be easier than to imagine how "precognitive dreams" could be.

You used to like the verb to guess. What happened? "Pre-cognitive" is a faux-sophisticated way to say "good guess."

You are guessing they are not real. Wrongly ! But, carry on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eight bits
9 minutes ago, Habitat said:

You are guessing they are not real. Wrongly ! But, carry on.

You manage to get a lot wrong in a short post.

I am observing that they are real. Correctly.

What they aren't is suprising, or anything that makes the dreamer "special," or that promotes the experience of not always being wrong to evidence of divine intervention.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
23 minutes ago, Habitat said:

You are guessing they are not real. Wrongly ! But, carry on.

Are you suggesting that someone said dreams aren't real, or that prophetic dreams aren't real?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
24 minutes ago, eight bits said:

You manage to get a lot wrong in a short post.

I am observing that they are real. Correctly.

What they aren't is suprising, or anything that makes the dreamer "special," or that promotes the experience of not always being wrong to evidence of divine intervention.

Waffle on, brother, you adhere to the "law of large numbers" theory that says if there are enough dreams, sooner or later, one will seem to be a "hit", and erroneously be interpreted as "prophetic".  And you, and the smug supporters of that idea, would be wrong, yet again. Which is not to say people don't make these false connections, but that that is a cover-all, that can be applied to all, nope, incorrect.

Edited by Habitat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
35 minutes ago, danydandan said:

Are you suggesting that someone said dreams aren't real, or that prophetic dreams aren't real?

He was being characteristically crafty, seeming to allow that prophetic dreams exist, but in reality believes it purely a matter of coincidence. An entirely different interpretation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan

Ah.

Edited by danydandan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
3 minutes ago, Habitat said:

He was being characteristically crafty, seeming to allow that prophetic dreams exist, but in reality believes it purely a matter of coincidence. An entirely different interpretation. 

Hindsight is always a hundred percent correct. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye
1 hour ago, Habitat said:

The more capacious, the less need for "out" labels, much can be left "undecided", and especially if there is no pressing need to do otherwise. In the contest between what has repeatedly demonstrated itself to me, convincingly, and "conventional wisdom" that says it isn't so, the former has to prevail. I don't out-source first hand observation. If you don't trust your own senses, best to retire to the corner of the room, curl up into a ball, and start rocking back and forth. Or watch Sean Carroll fan-gathering speech videos.

What happened to your 'fence' and 'courses' for your horses ? You are cooking up a big pot of a priori over a very small pile of coals. As salacious as you try to make out your recipe to be the proof is in the pudding without the eating, I won't stick my finger in it even if you say I'll pull out a plum. 

All you are saying here apparently, is that the fence is all that there is to the capaciousness because the fence is all you have, somewhat tenuous when neither can hold on to space or time in the mind.

~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
Just now, danydandan said:

Hindsight is always a hundred percent correct. 

That I doubt. I once had a dream that seemed so ridiculous, that when I awoke from it, I actually vocalized, "As if that could ****ing happen ! " It did, in fine detail, several years later. That was about the time I realised, somewhat belatedly (I had already had a number of these types of dreams), that this is real.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw
2 minutes ago, third_eye said:

What happened to your 'fence' and 'courses' for your horses ? You are cooking up a big pot of a priori over a very small pile of coals. As salacious as you try to make out your recipe to be the proof is in the pudding without the eating, I won't stick my finger in it even if you say I'll pull out a plum. 

All you are saying here apparently, is that the fence is all that there is to the capaciousness because the fence is all you have, somewhat tenuous when neither can hold on to space or time in the mind.

For some reason, when I read that, I heard it in Maureen O'Hara's voice.

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
1 minute ago, Hammerclaw said:

For some reason, when I read that, I heard it in Maureen O'Hara's voice.

Did it make any sense in that voice ?

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw
Just now, Habitat said:

Did it make any sense in that voice ?

Well, it sounded delightfully Irish. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye
Just now, Hammerclaw said:

For some reason, when I read that, I heard it in Maureen O'Hara's voice.

Maybe its because I was hearing  " God has a most wicked sense of humor. " when I was replying

~

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
6 minutes ago, third_eye said:

What happened to your 'fence' and 'courses' for your horses ? You are cooking up a big pot of a priori over a very small pile of coals. As salacious as you try to make out your recipe to be the proof is in the pudding without the eating, I won't stick my finger in it even if you say I'll pull out a plum. 

All you are saying here apparently, is that the fence is all that there is to the capaciousness because the fence is all you have, somewhat tenuous when neither can hold on to space or time in the mind.

~

No real idea what your point is, could be a translation thing, not sure how "salacious" applies to anything here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye
Just now, Habitat said:

No real idea what your point is, could be a translation thing, not sure how "salacious" applies to anything here.

I meant it as your far reaching stretch into the titillating prophetical, never mind, it was just my attempt at delineating how the capaciousness is being defined

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
Just now, third_eye said:

I meant it as your far reaching stretch into the titillating prophetical, never mind, it was just my attempt at delineating how the capaciousness is being defined

I think the point is this, there is no need to be making decisions about any contentious matters in this life, unless you have to make a call one way or the other, and that "pressure" to do so, can come from within, or without, and in the case of the anti-woo warrior, that pressure is from within, there is no external compulsion operating. The lack of capaciousness that creates that pressure comes from excessive reliance on the rational faculty, which has no application at all to the "unmanifest", and dictates a version of reality that totally excludes what cannot be apprehended, rationally. I can't comprehend rationally that dreams can 'accurately predict future happenings, well beyond the explanations of the "law of large numbers", no-one can, but I'm not captive to a compulsion to explain it, and those that think there must be a rational explanation, or it isn't real, won't except it could be real, on that basis.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye
Just now, Habitat said:

I think the point is this, there is no need to be making decisions about any contentious matters in this life, unless you have to make a call one way or the other, and that "pressure" to do so, can come from within, or without, and in the case of the anti-woo warrior, that pressure is from within, there is no external compulsion operating. The lack of capaciousness that creates that pressure comes from excessive reliance on the rational faculty, which has no application at all to the "unmanifest", and dictates a version of reality that totally excludes what cannot be apprehended, rationally. I can't comprehend rationally that dreams can 'accurately predict future happenings, well beyond the explanations of the "law of large numbers", no-one can, but I'm not captive to a compulsion to explain it, and those that think there must be a rational explanation, or it isn't real, won't except it could be real, on that basis.

Right, let's be clear about some of the key issues that you brought up here in this particular passage and pull the blanket out from over the so called virgin territory. The conspicuous overview to me seems to point out the glaring misnomer regarding what is or is not actually virginal. The capricious demarcation that you draw around woo and the rational doesn't draw on or around anything either, except what you accept as definitively sound to you. You forget that you are casting your logic net over a wide terrain and then when coming up empty, says that the net is too small or that the fish was too big, or when you come up with a fish, you say that all the fishes are there in your net because that's all the fish there is, and all and every fish that there exists are the same. That's the extent of your numbers against the numbers of those that do not have nets, but not the extent of those numbers who, though have no nets, or not entirely oblivious to what nets are.

Where you are running up against is this wall of so called 'anti woo' that you keep banging your head against, maybe there are such apparitions of such anti woo brigades, but I wouldn't go as far as to say that everything not without an apathy to woo is also anti woo, sometimes woo is just an irrational perspective to what is commonly known as a set of unique and basic situation or circumstance. To make more of it teeters it over to the woo. There is nothing wrong with believing that there is something more to anything and everything, that's how science and the rational gains greater knowledge of what is already clear cut definitive information. It must add and not detract, from what is firm knowledge and understanding is what I am saying, if your woo manifesto has to tear down common sense before it makes any headway along some imagined fence demarcating the capacious mental provisional logic gap, I am afraid it is all nothing more than Atlantis calling from the mists of misnomers.

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.