Has everyone asked God to reveal himself?

[eight bits]

37 minutes ago, Will Due said:

Ya know, I've been thinking.

Welcome news in difficult times.

37 minutes ago, Will Due said:

Some of you have stated that nobody knows if God exists.

Guilty.

37 minutes ago, Will Due said:

Then some more of you go on to state that the only thing that can be known is that it's not knowable if God exists

It is possible to know something and not know that you know it. So, at one level of discourse, if something is uncertsin, then I would have to make some allowance for the logical possibility that the reason why I believe the matter is uncertain is because despite knowing the answer, I don't know that I know it.

But, as should be obvious, very little discourse actually occurs at that level, because very little discourse is possible when every relevant logical possibility is being hauled around or tied off.

It is not seriously possible that I would know the correct answer to the Question of God and yet not know that I knew it. It's not seriously possible that I know the population of Finland as of their last census, either - seeing how I don't even know that Finland has a census (I'd bet that they do, though).

But you never know -

 

Edited April 7, 2020 by eight bits

[Will Due]

30 minutes ago, eight bits said:

Welcome news in difficult times.

 

The times are difficult. But it's times like these when otherwise difficult things are overcome. Like divergent people actually coming together.

 

30 minutes ago, eight bits said:

Guilty.

 

You're not on trial.

Spoiler

But you are being tested.

 

30 minutes ago, eight bits said:

It is possible to know something and not know that you know it. So, at one level of discourse, if something is uncertsin, then I would have to make some allowance for the logical possibility that the reason why I believe the matter is uncertain is because despite knowing the answer, I don't know that I know it.

 

[Stubbly_Dooright]

11 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

Living Life is what it's all about. So many, because of handicap or chronic illness have to endure life and find what happiness they can. It is foolishness for the healthy to cloister themselves away from it, dreaming of the next life. To paraphrase Stan Lee: " 'Tis not by dropping out of life, but by plunging into it that you will find your wisdom. There are causes to espouse, battles to be won. There is glory and grandeur all about you if you will but see. There will be time enough to disavow your heritage once death has claimed you. Until then, you should live life to the full, else be unworthy of the title, human."

I have come to feel, that is usually the case with me. How appropriate coming from a person who created his own heroes.   Other than to entertain in such a way, if anything, I think this man’s legacy would be for all to find their inner heroes.     

[Stubbly_Dooright]

1 hour ago, Will Due said:

 

Ya know, I've been thinking. Some of you have stated that nobody knows if God exists.

Then some more of you go on to state that the only thing that can be known is that it's not knowable if God exists

So let me see, if what's known is that it's not known, by what means does one end up knowing this?  

 

Is it within the answer to that question that God reveals himself?

 

 

Wouldn’t he have done that by now?!

If there is no evidence, hence there will be no evidence. 

[Stubbly_Dooright]

51 minutes ago, eight bits said:

 

1 hour ago, Will Due said:

Ya know, I've been thinking.

Welcome news in difficult times.

1 hour ago, Will Due said:

Some of you have stated that nobody knows if God exists.

Guilty.

1 hour ago, Will Due said:

Then some more of you go on to state that the only thing that can be known is that it's not knowable if God exists

It is possible to know something and not know that you know it. So, at one level of discourse, if something is uncertsin, then I would have to make some allowance for the logical possibility that the reason why I believe the matter is uncertain is because despite knowing the answer, I don't know that I know it.

But, as should be obvious, very little discourse actually occurs at that level, because very little discourse is possible when every relevant logical possibility is being hauled around or tied off.

It is not seriously possible that I would know the correct answer to the Question of God and yet not know that I knew it. It's not seriously possible that I know the population of Finland as of their last census, either - seeing how I don't even know that Finland has a census (I'd bet that they do, though).

 

There was something else, Will’s post have made me think about. And your reply, I think pretty much ties into that. 

As I have made known for years here, I grew up without any religious teaching, practice, experience, what have you. And that’s thanks, to this country and their laws that allows us to be free to do with what we practice ( I know, to a point  ) And I constantly remember and reflect on all those in my real life and those on message boards and such, getting so angry at Me for not knowing about their god and their religious practices. Angry at me!! It’s not my fault, I don’t know. It’s their country that allowed my parents to not raise us this way. (Of course, I’m definitely not complaining. I am grateful and that should left alone too  ) 

I get very few, if none, responses pointing that out. They get angry at me. (There are some that change subject, which I find is not going to work) But, how lack of understanding and sense (in my own opinion) does one have, if they blame someone for not knowing aspects of religion, that their parents are allowed within law to not teach?!? Do they even realize, within their glee of them able to practice what they want, other have the same allowance to not to?!?! 

Why is it, that a religion that is revered to be so ‘magical’, it doesn’t make itself known to those not exposed? Why is it, I reflect, that this is not expected by those who complain of someone else’s lack of religious education. I wonder, if it’s something that shocks them, when they realize their own omnipotent belief, doesn’t act omnipotent enough. 

I don’t know yet, if I’m seeing the metal gears working or the deer in the headlights come about, is giving me satisfaction or I’m getting tired of it. 

Is there going to be a time, for me, when I tell them that their magical religion is unknown to me for good reason, shouldn’t it shown itself, that they get shocked into realization and realize, “Oh ****, I’m afraid you’re right!” 

Uh..............sorry 8bits, my darling, I think I vented off your post. *slinks away in shame* ................. still wagging my finger at some. 

[eight bits]

Sounded good to me, Stubs.

Rock on.

[Stubbly_Dooright]

2 minutes ago, eight bits said:

Sounded good to me, Stubs.

Rock on.

Cool!! Thanks Sweatie Darling!!    

[+Desertrat56]

14 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

mensa Back in the old pre computer days. Long time ago but i had to provide the results of  a couple of IQ tests which had been supervised by a qualified person I cant remember who mine was. Whether it was someone in the education system qualified to administer them  or an independent psychologist.  Any way i scored in the 160s Which i was doing regularly then  and was qualified to join bu i didn't .

If you pass the mensa test they do NOT require that you provide "IQ tests which had been supervised by a qualified person".

Edited April 7, 2020 by Desertrat56

[+Desertrat56]

16 hours ago, XenoFish said:

The worse part is that members further it. Instead of just dropping it and moving back onto the original discussion, they fuel the fire. Despite the claim that they've been discussing thing with him for years, nothing has changed, then why bother? The same goes for the others. There is nothing gained but a waste of forum space. Why keep going when it is obviously pointless? I've seen too many thread die because of this. 

I agree with this, and yet I still found something he wrote to comment about.  I don't read his long winded posts but I read some of the responses.  It is like watching a train wreck, you just can't look away.

[Alchopwn]

[+Hammerclaw]

5 hours ago, Piney said:

Mother Woo. 

That's her UM name now?

[Piney]

8 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

That's her UM name now?

I'd have to  go back and look. I think it was Mwoo7 or something like it. 

[Piney]

1 hour ago, Hammerclaw said:

That's her UM name now?

@MWoo7   

[XenoFish]

2 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

That's her UM name now?

https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/profile/162130-mwoo7/

[Mr Walker]

On 4/6/2020 at 11:31 AM, third_eye said:

Let's take a slice at "persona"

~

Yep precisely And its my belief that almost every poster here does not present the whole of their character but a persona of it, or an avatar.

i certainly know that what you see from me here is a small slice of my overall personality and life   People ether hide parts of themselves here, or the y magnify certain aspects.

That's the name and the game of a forum.

99% of my life is NOT an unexplained mystery but here the forum is about that topic and so most of my musings here relate to the unusual or unexplained  In mycase the slice you get is true but there is no guarantee that any thing any poster presents, or says, about themselves online  is real or true. 

[Mr Walker]

On 4/6/2020 at 1:34 PM, cormac mac airt said:

Which is entirely irrelevant to your intelligence as a whole. Quite a hole you keep digging. 

Nobody gives a damn about your scores other than pretending it somehow makes you better than you actually are, it doesn't. And again, while it may reflect your IQ AT THE TIME it WASN'T at the 90th percentile.

cormac

There is no other way to measure intelligence, if the nature of intelligence is defined by those tests.  Of course today there are " multiple intelligences" and many ways to assess a person's intelligence.

My point remains  I have consistently scored in a very high percentile on every test taken and thus can NOT be called stupid, due to the definitions of intelligence and stupidity being mutually exclusive 

To quote sherapy   "Moving on"

if you  want to debate some other aspect of my personality do so but i have come to believe you are a person who takes pleasure in belittling others,  and thus I wont take much notice of anything you write  Ive got more valuable things to do than debate such people . 

[Mr Walker]

On 4/6/2020 at 8:35 PM, psyche101 said:

Not really. I've changed my mind based on facts. When I joined here I was a Catholic, supported the Sea Shepard and was on the fence with afterlife, bigfoot and aliens visiting earth. Gosh that was a long time ago now. I've changed my views on reasoning, not shock. 

No you don't. You get more requests to cease and desist than you do to expand. What's that telling you?

I beg to differ. I've seen posters even promoting breatharians. I found your attempts to counsel me offensive. Some seem to think what intrigues them should be a way of life for every one. You are not very good at seeing other points view though.

It's not how you come of. Most would agree I think.

Not your call. Some find the range of emotions are a god way to cope. IMHO, it's healthier than inventing a mental construct like a God.

We are the sum of our experiences. If you pretend not to be, you will become a distant stranger to yourself.

Again, not how it looks from here.

Your not fooling anyone but yourself. When subjects like biological bonds are discussed, it's more than clear that you are out of your depth and feverishly Googling the subject.

You make up future physics and say your correct. Most posters would not agree with your own assessment. 

No, you make stuff up and refuse to admit when you're wrong.

You are just compounding the depth of your inexperience in this area. Believe what you want. You will anyway.

You've evolved belief and opinion over time. Yes that happens but a radical sudden change usually requires a shock . 

As i said; if i know something which can benefit another i have an ethical duty to make it public. What the other does with that knowledge is up to them My duty is discharged.  If you find it offensive that is your problem, not mine. As you say, you are finding it to be offensive . 

lol Ive taught and been a counsellor and been academically trained.  My understanding of the biological, emotional, and cognitive nature of human bonding is much better than your own.

You also seem to believe that, unless a person has a physical experience the y cannot simulate the effects of that experience at will  ie that unless a person is a biological father the y cannot have /feel or replicate the feelings such an experience engenders. That's untrue. Cognitive science and psychology proves otherwise  All feelings are cognitive constructs and can be built or constructed (or  de/reconstructed)  through will, practice and training. 

I dont make up future physics. Yes its future and the world may blow up and that future not occur, BUT if humans continue to live and progress their science and technology those things are inevitable (unless there is a reason they are physically impossible, and my point is that we cannot know NOW what will be physically possible in the future) History show tha t to be true  You seem stuck in the belief that somehow we have reached a limit in the advancement of sciences and technologies. History shows this to be untrue and science is actually progressing faster than it ever has.

  You are a bit like a crewman on one of columbus's ships  discussing flying to the moon.  " Of course its impossible and can never happen."

Yet, a mere 500 years later, (a brief moment in the total of  human history) man kind was walking on the moon. In another 500 years we will be  (baring natural or man made catastrophes)  living on other planets, exploring the galaxy,  and you wont recognise the earth, any more than that crewman would recognise the world today. 

[SHaYap]

37 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

99% of my life is NOT an unexplained mystery but here the forum is about that topic and so most of my musings here relate to the unusual or unexplained  In mycase the slice you get is true but there is no guarantee that any thing any poster presents, or says, about themselves online  is real or true. 

That does not explain away your propensity to lie though. 

Anyhow, 99% of what you posts are conclusively unreliable and closer to outright lies.

~

39 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

i certainly know that what you see from me here is a small slice of my overall personality and life   People ether hide parts of themselves here, or the y magnify certain aspects

"small slice of... "

Is this a little lie or a big liar... a little bit of both to be honest... 

"the y" ?

You meant to say " yourself " if you were honest... 

~

[Mr Walker]

On 4/6/2020 at 9:37 PM, Liquid Gardens said:

"I see failure to tell the truth as lying..." . 

When you brag about yourself and criticize others' 'training' and intellect, you claim it's important that you not "lie" (psst, it's actually not 'lying' to just keep your mouth shut about how great you think you are).  It's not then very logical to not extend that reasoning/excuse to others then, right?

Not bragging and yes all truth is important; and truth is more important than tact, politeness, kindness in a sense because being truthful facilitates all those things. Lying never does  lying by omission is as deceitful and thus as potentially destructive as lying by commission    I've tried to find reasons for others inability to understand  certain things There are many possible reasons Personal lack of experience  A fixed investment in a certain world view But yep, lots of times it is lack of education in an area, or lack of reading and knowldge or lack of interest. Intellect itself is rarely a problem.

it is how people use that intellect (and many were never given an opportunity to develop their own potentials)    I believe in democratic rule but sometimes the thought of rules made by the populace  can be terrifying if that populace is not both educated and rational  

[Mr Walker]

On 4/6/2020 at 10:31 PM, Desertrat56 said:

I need to mention too that you can get a higher score on some IQ tests if you start reading a lot more about science and learn better ways to perceive multi-dimensional shapes.  An IQ score is not written in stone but taking the same test over and over does not change your score, you have to imporve your mind to improve your score.

Yes you can get a higher score because all testing is dependent on expertise and practice in the format of the test as much as the content.

(I dont mean taking a test, finding the right results, memorising them and doing the same test.

i  mean doing a test or exam of exactly the same standard and framework  multiple times.)

Indeed it has been found that one of the strongest ways to improve any form of test results is to practice similar tests or exams

A stated earlier, i taught my students how to raise their Iqs on the standard govt test by about 10 points, just by teaching them the nature and makeup/purpose of the test, some strategies for getting answers right, and then letting them practice old ones.

In some tests,  just an improvement in vocabulary/reading skills,  can make a significant difference   Iq tests dont really measure intelligence, so much as your abilty to do well in an IQ test. (but by defintion this establishes your public  IQ )

This is in part true for all exams and tests, although some knowledge does help   

[Mr Walker]

On 4/7/2020 at 1:32 AM, Alchopwn said:

This is typical of narcissists.  In general they have a lot of trouble learning things as they lack the necessary humility for critical self reflection, or the interest in what other people have to teach them, except as it pertains to stroking their ego.  If you base your self esteem on the notion that you are perfect, how can anyone teach you anything?  I mean, how dare they presume to teach you?  YOU should be teaching THEM.  This is why so many narcissists wind up becoming clergymen.  They get to stand in as a mouthpiece for an almighty god and have these willing dupes listening to their benign advice.  The dupes get their authoritarian daddy emotions played with, and the narcissist gets to play god.  It is a codependent relationship, and our society pretends that it is healthy.  The truth is that it probably wouldn't matter until the money starts getting involved, and people have their trust abused (and their children, as narcissists are statistically more likely to be pedophiles).

You might be right but i suspect deep prejudices and personal experiences are driving this opinion rather than reality) 

Ive found far fewer narcissists among preachers than among teachers (and the higher up in authority a person is, the more likely they are to have strong narcissistic elements in their personality

However i have run into fewer than a handful of  people i could identify as  narcissists in my 70 years and thousands of encounters  

[Mr Walker]

On 4/7/2020 at 8:11 AM, Hammerclaw said:

The mistake is to seek a source of power outside oneself. That strength comes from within. It is your own faith, your own strength, your own power that makes you whole. I know it may sound trite, even cryptic, but that which we call God is interactive, requiring input to generate output. 

very true.  Yet still there is an external  source of power which can recharge your own or increase the voltage of it    The hardest thing is making the connection, and maintaining the flow. Thats the interactive part,   and it does require both input and output. 

[Mr Walker]

On 4/7/2020 at 11:32 AM, Hammerclaw said:

Living Life is what it's all about. So many, because of handicap or chronic illness have to endure life and find what happiness they can. It is foolishness for the healthy to cloister themselves away from it, dreaming of the next life. To paraphrase Stan Lee: " 'Tis not by dropping out of life, but by plunging into it that you will find your wisdom. There are causes to espouse, battles to be won. There is glory and grandeur all about you if you will but see. There will be time enough to disavow your heritage once death has claimed you. Until then, you should live life to the full, else be unworthy of the title, human."

Yep l loved  old Stan.

Right up there with Heinlein,  Clarke,  Asimov, and Tasslehoff Burrfoot,  for wisdom .

A lot of my ethics and moralities as a teenager came from reading the marvel comics and their characters  Damn but i wish I'd kept that "first edition" spiderman or some of the other first edition comics  i bought in the sixties . 

[Mr Walker]

On 4/7/2020 at 11:55 AM, jmccr8 said:

Hi Walker

I am going to try to be discrete her and just say that in that how we perceive intelligence here is not just in the quality of evidence and the manner in which one expresses their position as a measure of their intelligence. 

i have no idea what my IQ is and yet we can engage each other quite effectively and no one has asked me what my IQ is so when you pursue this avenue of arguments that your premise is weak.

jmccr8

I appreciate this, but in the real world your intelligence IS what your Iq score says it is (not so much today) It determined your schooling your career and your success in life, almost as much as money did.  I mean i could claim to be 6 foot six but the measurements on record would disprove this 

There are other elements of character which can help a person like charm good looks and discretion. Also the abilty to lie well or understand human character and nature But intelligence remains defined by the intelligence tests although these are often quite difernt to the older ones

Once upon a time no one could get past about age 12 without at least one IQ test  and these were placed on your report (at least in my time /place )

I would say you have a good Iq, perhaps slanted to the practical and physical aspects of intelligence, so you might do well  with things   like   pattern recognition or spatial awareness,more  than verbal or abstract problems (that is just a guess) 

[Mr Walker]

On 4/7/2020 at 11:50 PM, Desertrat56 said:

If you pass the mensa test they do NOT require that you provide "IQ tests which had been supervised by a qualified person".

Actually they do, here . Ie its an either or option, as i thought i said 

Today you either have to do a test directly supervised by mensa (reasonably rare   and   inaccessible as a country person as the y are only held in my capital city ) Or provide results supervised and verified by a psychologist 

https://www.mensa.org.au/membership-information/how-to-join

 

How to join

There are two ways to join Mensa:

1. by sitting for the Mensa Supervised Entrance Test (for candidates 10 and over), or
2. by presenting evidence of a qualifying score in an approved standard IQ test taken elsewhere (see Prior Evidence below).

The Psychologist's Form must be completed by an accredited, practising psychologist in Australia (one registered with the appropriate state board) who certifies that he/she has administered a specific test to you on a specific date and that you have attained a specific score which is at or above the 98th percentile. Our own consulting psychologist will then ascertain that this test is one accepted by Mensa and that you have a qualifying result.

Since the Mensa organisations in some countries do not accept prior evidence, Australian Mensa, in principle, will not accept tests taken in those countries, nor tests taken in countries where no national Mensa exists. If you have taken an IQ test outside Australia, contact testing@mensa.org.au before applying for admission via Prior Evidence .

end quote 

I suspect the size and low population density of Australia caused mensa Australia to add the extra testing  because many could not get to their capital cities