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 -

'What do you know about 'The Urantia Papers'?'


c.s.lewis

Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

I'd say same here, I just don't think there's much 'dumbass' about it.  As long as it's not getting in the way of real conversations it doesn't bug me.  That certainly does happen but on this particular thread our two main Urantia believers haven't really tried to engage much, and that's way before it was Walkerized.

We can't expect them to engage, since they exist in a theosophical closed space of their own. One has only a tenuous grasp of the medley of disparate religious concepts woven into his personal theology., the other is wedded to the text of his esoteric scripture to the exclusion of objective discernment. Neither brook any debate concerning their core beliefs. It's as pointless an exercise as the perpetual haranguing of you know who. There's nothing to be had doing it. It's dumber 'n dogsh it.

Edited by Hammerclaw
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

It's as pointless an exercise as the perpetual haranguing of you know who. There's nothing to be had doing it. It's dumber 'n dogsh it.

Can't really argue with that but then it just brings up what really is an acceptable 'point'.  I think it's a fool's errand and indeed a 'pointless' expectation to change people's minds here, but I do know that in the act of being repetitive, and especially in reading other's comments, I have sometimes learned new things so there are some positives.  It may not be anything more than, 'and they're also wrong because of x', but it's still new.  My views on what is claimed scripturally about 'hell' has changed quite a bit from discussions here, as well as my perspective on the 'can god make square circles' argument, for example.  But yes, no argument, there can be a lot of chaff to go through to get that wheat.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

I'd say same here, I just don't think there's much 'dumbass' about it.  As long as it's not getting in the way of real conversations it doesn't bug me.  That certainly does happen but on this particular thread our two main Urantia believers haven't really tried to engage much, and that's way before it was Walkerized.

I agree, it could be engaging it depends on the contributors. Some posters bring it regardless of the topic. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Try as we might it does seem that we will never make any sense of this world we live in with the use of books. 

This “Holy” book, that “Holy” book and man is still as confused and broken as ever.  

Very little credence is given to personal experiences, which are the most useful. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Xeno

I think the biggest problem with discussing the UB with believers is that they do not understand the depth and breadth of what they are getting into with regard to critical review. There are many worthwhile points of discussion for a person if they are well founded in several aspects of life outside of the UB like science and are able to discuss it from that position as it is a strong influence in the UB teachings whether they concepts are real or not the affect of the use of inference in it is. I don't claim to be as informed on science as I know others here are stronger in that area but I am capable of researching points worth discussing and that is why I participate, for my own education.

My interest is why someone believes and do not care that they do believe as that is their choice and does not infer that I think they are bad or wrong as my interest is in their ability to illustrate and discuss points of a construct. I know that it can be difficult as it can seem like they are under attack by being questioned about the material.

Well said, Jay.   I too learn something all the time. I love UM. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Festina said:

Try as we might it does seem that we will never make any sense of this world we live in with the use of books. 

This “Holy” book, that “Holy” book and man is still as confused and broken as ever.  

Very little credence is given to personal experiences, which are the most useful. 

Hi Festina

Can't say I completely agree as not all books are fiction/fantasy or religious that I have learnt a great many things (spelling and punctuation is not a strong suit) that have been a benefit like making a living by keeping up with the changes in my industry or if I need a wiring or vacuum diagram for a car I am working on. I don't think that the majority of people with religious constructs are any more or less broken than anyone else nor do I find them difficult to work/live with as other humans and to a degree those holy books help them be better individuals. Do you really know anyone's dark side religious or not which is why I treat all people the same way. People disagree and agree with every person on this planet because every issue is independent.

People religious or not have personal experience is a given even though they are dismissive of each others

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

Well said, Jay.   I too learn something all the time. I love UM. 

Hi Sheri

Thanks, and yes that is why I joined this forum and has been a source of discovery about many things like history, science, music, and human social interaction of discussing abstract thought constructs with people of different inclinations. Not to forget that I also like to have fun and have a sense of humor.:lol:

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

@eight bits

 

Quoting myself:

Instead it emphasizes what Jesus' followers chose to do in initiating a new religion based on a lot of mistaken ideas about him, whereas the entirety of the papers emphasizes who he is, what his teachings are, what happened during his life, and so on, before it became lodged into the religion that now bares his name.

 

- How did that work? His followers would have had access to him. How did they form "mistaken ideas about him," especially about things that would be directly observable, like his teachings and what happened during his life? I understand that "who he is" might ultimately exceed the ready understanding of ancient fishermen, but the basic facts should still be square.

Whenever a group of people take instruction, it works like it always works. Some absorb more than others. But when it comes to something as interpretive as spiritual teachings, it seems to me, very few will get the gist of it off the bat. Even if the same things are taught repeatedly, then from different points of view for enhancement, still, there are limitations to how much will actually be realized by those listening to what is being taught. This situation was clearly demonstrated when Jesus exclaimed to his apostles (more than once) "How long shall I bear with you?" In other words, how long will it take for you to understand what it is I'm trying to teach you? And then, after he departed, the situation of having not understood enough, exasperated the loss of focus which precluded the apostles kicking the ball off in an unnecessary direction, proclaiming his resurrection as the "good news" instead of proclaiming the good news Jesus taught them to proclaim, that men and women only need to have faith in their being God's children and that God is a Father to all, on the day of Pentecost

 

 

 

- What happened to those "notes of Andrew," that were accurate enough for the UB to cite them, but were unable keep the gospels on track? Those notes must have been available to somebody back when the canonical gospels were written in the form we have them today (sometime in the interval 65-125 CE, give or take).

Andrew's notes were not cited by the writers of the papers. Although the personal records of the sayings of Jesus, as compiled by Andrew and some of the other apostles, were used as a source for the earliest Christian documents, the writers of the papers didn't use them. They didn't need to. They have their own record.

 

 

 

@Liquid Gardens

 

- You mention our 'local universe', does Urantia teach more of a meta/multi-universe cosmology, where there are several universes?  

There is only one universe (a universe of universes) compromised of many different universes of varying sizes and constitution.

 

 

 

- When we say that Jesus is 'one of many' but definitely outranks everyone but the Father, is that for this specific universe?

Yes.

 

 

 

- Do other universes have their own 'one of many'/Jesus who is the creator?  

Yes. Each local universe has its own universe creator. Each one is unique yet similar in many ways to all of the others.

 

 

 

- Is there just one Father above all universes?

Yes. 

 

 

 

- I find that to be a significant improvement over other common conceptions where things you do unknowingly and non-deliberately, like being born, are also sinful.  

Tell me about it. We are the only ones in control of doing what's right and wrong and not anyone else. Especially not our ancestors.

 

 

 

- Is/was Jesus necessary for salvation at all?  

Yes. He blazed the only trail that works to follow. "No man goes to the Father except through me." I liken it to mean the same thing that happens with a drop of water that falls in the mountains. There are prescribed pathways saved, like streams and rivers, that will bring it secured to join the ocean. 

 

 

 

- The main reason that salvation is available for Christians is because of Jesus' sacrifice.  

Yes. It's a common and fiercely held idea that many Christians hold onto.

 

 


- You mentioned that faith is what earns you salvation in Urantia, to put it basically, faith in what? In the Father? 

Faith in the fatherhood of God. Faith, that is similar to that of a small child in its good and loving parents (when it has them).

 

 


- Faith that Jesus is our savior? I don't think it's the latter since you mention that sin is separate from religion.

Faith in being the Father's child. And learning what it means to be entrusted with the daily responsibility of learning how to be about the business of the doing of his will. Just like all good children do 

 

 


- To be clear I'm not asking these questions to mock, all I know about Urantia is what I remember from your posts.  I looked a little at I think it was the Wayfarers link earlier and to a non-believer parts of Urantia definitely sound somewhat science-fiction-ish and far out (part of its appeal to Jimi I'd bet), but it's no more unbelievable than the other major religions and their assorted beasties and concepts.  Thanks for the quotes on being unselfish, that's what I expected and not much there that it teaches that I disagree with.  I especially liked, "Then must mortal man live face to face with the incessant clamoring of an inescapable self for recognition and honor"; very apt and well put, and wow do many of us mortal men and women on this board know the truth of this 'incessant clamoring' all too well in regard to other posters here.

Well at least it shows that people care. :)

 

 

Edited by Will Due
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • This topic was locked and unlocked
On 11/14/2021 at 1:32 PM, Luis Marco said:

This is not spamming nor advertising, since URANTIA is already in the public domain, and free to read and download online...

So i am open here to debate with anyone who wants to 'debunk' this divine revelation, URANTIA, which objectively and for me it's impossible, wanna try?, here i am!, let's start this debate---if you want.

What a farce of a thread.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Will Due said:

Well at least it shows that people care. :)

Hi Will

Seasons Greetings, I have been following your input and am impressed with they way you have evolved to discussion the philosophical aspects of the UB with Eight Bits and Liquid Gardens.:tu:

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi, Will

Thank you for answering.

1 hour ago, Will Due said:

 And then, after he departed, the situation of having not understood enough, exasperated the loss of focus which precluded the apostles kicking the ball off in an unnecessary direction, proclaiming his resurrection as the "good news" instead of proclaiming the good news Jesus taught them to proclaim, that men and women only need to have faith in their being God's children and that God is a Father to allon the day of Pentecost

(Emphasis added) That seems like a fairly straightforward message to get across, if that actually was the message. Even if the disciples weren't the sharpest knives in the drawer, if Jesus wanted them to teach that, perhaps he could have had them memorize those two dozen or so words. And that still leaves unanswered how or why the disciples would misconceive plain observable facts.

1 hour ago, Will Due said:

Andrew's notes were not cited by the writers of the papers. Although the personal records of the sayings of Jesus, as compiled by Andrew and some of the other apostles, were used as a source for the earliest Christian documents, the writers of the papers didn't use them. They didn't need to. They have their own record.

The papers talked about (cited) Andrew's notes as a no longer extant primary source for information about Jesus which was (if I understood correctly) both accurate and available for use by the canonical and maybe some non-canonical gospel authors.

My question was about the human ancient gospel authors. How could they have had Andrew's accurate and authoritative notes available for their use but still fail to ensure the accuracy of their gospels?

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, psyche101 said:

What a farce of a thread.

Well, to be fair, if one is to critique a religion and the book on which it's based, it's behooves one to have, at least, some passing familiarity with the text--do you think? I mean, to be completely ignorant of the source material, which is the origin of their beliefs is hardly fair, is it? Unless, of course, one is only here to mock, to disparage, to jeer. (Guilty of all counts, myself).

Edited by Hammerclaw
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, eight bits said:

That seems like a fairly straightforward message to get across, if that actually was the message. Even if the disciples weren't the sharpest knives in the drawer, if Jesus wanted them to teach that, perhaps he could have had them memorize those two dozen or so words. And that still leaves unanswered how or why the disciples would misconceive plain observable facts.

 

The apostles did have it more or less memorized. But the shock of Jesus' death was more than they could bear. Then, after he appeared to them in a new form, as he promised he would, all they could do on the day of Pentecost was to be focused on that. Which was purely natural. So in their excitement they forgot themselves (and what they were taught to do) in overemphasizing his resurrection. Thereby inadvertently making it the cornerstone of what became a new religion about him instead of the religion he taught them to proclaim. Which is to simply have faith in the Fatherhood of God and the corresponding childhood relationship men and women have with him. 

 

1 hour ago, eight bits said:

The papers talked about (cited) Andrew's notes as a no longer extant primary source for information about Jesus which was (if I understood correctly) both accurate and available for use by the canonical and maybe some non-canonical gospel authors.

 

Andrew's notes, as well as the personal notes of the sayings of Jesus made by others, were not intended to ever be used as a basis for canonizing a new religion. It is noteworthy that Jesus never wrote down anything, except for the few times he did it (for the edification of certain troubled individuals) on the ground and in the sand. The notes you're referring to, were not definitive of his teachings in the way you're thinking, if I understand you correctly. Not to mention that his teachings are much more than just words. The true significance of his teachings is laid up in a knowledge of how he lived his life (and not only what he said) which is comprehensive, in it's presentation in the papers.

 

1 hour ago, eight bits said:

My question was about the human ancient gospel authors. How could they have had Andrew's accurate and authoritative notes available for their use but still fail to ensure the accuracy of their gospels?

 

It's a matter of comprehension. When taking instruction regarding something that's being taught, it's the degree that a person can teach it to someone else that it then becomes proof that the lesson was learned satisfactorily by the one who teaches it. The teachings of Jesus, although all encompassing in their simplicity, will take the time it takes to fully unfold in a person's mind. So notwithstanding that the Gospel writers did have in their possession the notes of the sayings of Jesus, it was only a beginning. A rough draft sort of speak.

 

 

Edited by Will Due
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hammerclaw said:

Well, to be fair, if one is to critique a religion and the book on which it's based, it's behooves one to have, at least, some passing familiarity with the text--do you think? I mean, to be completely ignorant of the source material, which is the origin of their beliefs is hardly fair, is it? Unless, of course, one is only here to mock, to disparage, to jeer. (Guilty of all counts, myself).

It's hardly an open debate though. The OP is indeed just a giant farce to post an almost never ending stream of UB crap in YouTube.

There's no discussion. We just get told the UB confirms to science when it doesn't. 

Will is just preaching. There's nothing he has posted that we haven't seen a dozen time before. Halbert was a complete nothing burger and Luis is just a broken record. 

None of what was offered has been followed up. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

It's hardly an open debate though. The OP is indeed just a giant farce to post an almost never ending stream of UB crap in YouTube.

There's no discussion. We just get told the UB confirms to science when it doesn't. 

Will is just preaching. There's nothing he has posted that we haven't seen a dozen time before. Halbert was a complete nothing burger and Luis is just a broken record. 

None of what was offered has been followed up. 

Well, there's nothing we've posted on the topic which hasn't been seen a dozen times before, either. OP stupid, his religion stupid and of course, our ludicrous demands for rational explanations for purely faith-based concepts. Well, one is no more an expert theologian, just because one is religious, any more than one is a scientific expert, just because one adheres, strictly, to rational thought and the fruits of the scientific method. Intellectually speaking, up against our best thinkers, these guys are woefully outmatched. The only output that can be expected of them concerning their new-found faith will be religious. It's really just a waste of effort engaging them.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

We can't expect them to engage, since they exist in a theosophical closed space of their own. One has only a tenuous grasp of the medley of disparate religious concepts woven into his personal theology., the other is wedded to the text of his esoteric scripture to the exclusion of objective discernment. Neither brook any debate concerning their core beliefs. It's as pointless an exercise as the perpetual haranguing of you know who. There's nothing to be had doing it. It's dumber 'n dogsh it.

I still feel ripped of. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't find this topic any different than ancient aliens, pyramids, hollow moon/earth fat or not it is just something to discuss. I think Will has put some real effort into his response and how he interprets the philosophical aspects with relation to the bible.

Luis on the other hand is less receptive in discussing at this point and who knows maybe he will see and understand what Will is doing and follow his example.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, eight bits said:

Acceptance is a judgment of plausibility, not an assertion of certainty. It often refers to a level of confidence, but in this case refers to one-sided simple admissibility: everything in your claim is possible and even routine (I, too, had some "peanut paste" as part of my breakfast this morning). Unlike so many of your more ambitious claims, you plausibly do know what you had for breakfast. (Compare, for instance, that you plainly don't know how an electrical capacitor-condenser behaves in a radio receiver.)

Given further that nothing is at stake for me in what you had for breakfast, and that I have no foundation for any other account of your breakfast, you're golden.

Not because I am certain, not even because I am confident, but rather because I don't care enough to inquire beyond the undisputed surface.

Or. to tidy all of that up into a few words: peanut paste definitely exists.

Or, "Mr Walker had peanut paste for breakfast" is the best explanation of all the available evidence. That, too, is a possible meaning of acceptance, and one which connotes neither certainty nor confidence, but rather a drought of relevant evidence.

Now that I can believe in.

Basically you have it, except  that you knowing peanut paste exists does NOTHING to increase the probability that i am telling the truth about having it for breakfast 

The fact that you know dogs exist does NOTHING to prove that i own one  This discussion is not about the existence of things, but about the abilty of one person to prove to another that they had contact/experience   with a thing  ( god /dog/wife /peanut paste/  cosmic consciousness)

Your disbelief in, and lack of experience with, a couple of those doesn't lessen the probability  that I know them.

Ie your disbelief in their general existence is what causes you to disbelieve that  I have contact with them.

  If the y don't exist, then I can't have contact   That's a problem with your  faith/belief, and lack of personal  experiences, not with the truth/reality   

I can't prove a single one of those to a doubter who is sceptical of any evidences I might produce.

Me having peanut paste for breakfast is no more/less possible /plausible  than me having contact with the cosmic consciousness, given that both exist and are real physical things  

Only when you don't believe one exists, does it become less plausible in your mind 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

I still feel ripped of. 

Just another losing night at the pokies, 'wheat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Nuclear Wessel said:

Given what we know about the digestive system and considering the technology we have we could very well know that you had peanut butter for breakfast this morning. That is absurd. As eight bits pointed out though we don’t care enough. 

Not sure where you live Nuclear but my point was that I cant prove it to "you" 

If you  were here and observed me eat  it, you would know the truth.

If you  were with me when  the things i talk about occurred you would be able to observe the truth/reality of them (because the y are external events not constructs of my mind )  

Suppose i sent you a lab report on someone's stomach . How would you know it was mine  

And yes, that was MY point. You don't care enough to disbelieve, and so take my word on faith, without debate.

But the existence of "god or "miracles" ?

Oh no; that  cuts too close to your own values, beliefs, and world view. You can't let that go unchallenged   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

In a nutshell, you unfortunately don't.

All of the above is incorrect, as 8 alluded to you are confusing 'accepted' with 'not bothering to question'.  It's not that you say nothing that doesn't sound reasonable to me about yourself, but I don't think I'd be willing to put a wager down that almost any specific thing you've claimed is absolutely true (except you are a dude, that shows). So to that extent no I don't 'accept' any of your claims, which invalidates the above argument which is based on that.  As usual you try to frame this as being about 'belief', 'faith', and implying this is all a matter of pre-existing bias ('ready to believe') on people who disagree with you.  What you won't discuss is the evidence - can't discuss what doesn't exist. 

As I've said previously you are wrong above, I do have evidences of what you ate, I know there are things that are edible and things that are inedible, and the chances that you had peanut butter is much greater than you had tenderloin of Sasquatch, and that is because of the evidence.  There is no inconsistency in my approach here, my degree of belief is based on the evidence; it's not a good argument of yours that because I don't question peanut butter at breakfast there is then some implication of inconsistency when I question the totally un-evidenced, woo-ey cc. This is 'duh' level.

An open-minded person may approach your claims for the 'comic' consciousness (that's too good of a typo to just ignore and not proliferate) and say, 'I will set aside everything we know about psychology and physics temporarily in evaluating your claim.  So what evidence do you then have for the cc?".  And as quickly as it starts, it ends, you have no evidence, just your testimonials.  That is also why, 'I have the same evidences for my dog as I do for my god' is also false; one you can provide abundant evidence for and one you can't, thus the evidence you possess is not 'the same'.  That's been said a million times to you of course, maybe we'll get a Xmas miracle and this time you'll account for it.  What you mean to say is, "I'm as convinced of the cc as I am of dogs"; totally different claim.

What you avoid is the simple framing we use for most everything, 'what is the case for the cc?', because that is a very quick conversation and unfortunately for you is separated from questions of people's beliefs and biases, doubts, etc.  And you simply can't seem to control yourself, you always have to randomly and inaccurately try to slip in the word 'prove', which is a standard that no one but you is talking about. 

Come on man, I could have typed your response from memory, your framing of the argument is still flawed and doesn't address and incorporate the counter-arguments.  Again, this is all obvious stuff, and as @eight bitsso aptly put it and also applies to me:  "Or. to tidy all of that up into a few words: peanut paste definitely exists."

 

Its not incorrect You just desperately need to believe that it is  If you don't question something then you have accepted its validity /truth  

Of course you  can predict my response. it is always the same because it is correct and logical 

I realise tha t you and others think  I lie a lot.

As it happens, on UM i never lie (ie tell an intentional untruth )There is no point and it would hurt my argument by hurting my reputation,  but mainly it would go against my sense of honour and integrity 

Every incident of my life I have ever talked about here is as true as i can understand it to be,  Every one of them happened, and none are exaggerated There are still plenty of witnesses around for most  of them who could confirm this.  

As it happens the cosmic consciousness has a cosmic sense of humour so comic consciousness fits :)

I guess that's what amused 8 bits, as well.  :) 

The case for the CC is simple and complex 

1 historical

personal

3 evidenced by the abilities, skills and powers, that being connected to it has brought to humans, from  prehistoric times to the present day.

Humans of  every historical  age, every faith, every race,  and even atheists   (because you dont need belief or faith. It is real and the things it gives you are real,  thus an atheist can access and use it )  talk about, and describe this connection, and what it brings them. 

to put it simply 

you know  peanut paste exists 

I know peanut paste exists.

thus you are prepared to believe that i ate it for breakfast  (whether or not I truly did) 

You do NOT know the CC exists 

I do know that  it exists  (it's as real as peanut paste ) 

You have chosen to disbelieve  that humans can become one with the CC, despite the hundreds of individuals who have written about, and described, their experiences with it .

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

It's funny, but I just went back nine months in the forums, looking for a particular post of mine for a friend. In multiple threads, I encountered the same cast of characters having the same "discussion" with the same individual, more-or-less saying exactly the same thing as they are today. This just never gets old for you guys, does it? Now don't get mad, I'm as guilty of it as anyone. It just struck me that there's no new ground; it's the same well-trodden path, over and over again. Nothing is accomplished; it's almost a ritual. Perhaps, someday, we'll all tire of listening to echoes.

It never gets old for me because  I am discussing something i know to be real,  powerful, and empowering,  and thus important not just to me, but to everybody, and to the world  

I can't speak for why others debate this so passionately, although I have my suspicions :)  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

We can't expect them to engage, since they exist in a theosophical closed space of their own. One has only a tenuous grasp of the medley of disparate religious concepts woven into his personal theology., the other is wedded to the text of his esoteric scripture to the exclusion of objective discernment. Neither brook any debate concerning their core beliefs. It's as pointless an exercise as the perpetual haranguing of you know who. There's nothing to be had doing it. It's dumber 'n dogsh it.

Everyone of us is trapped within our own paradigms to a greater or lesser extent,   UNLESS we learn how to step outside them and see the world as if we were a different person with a different life history, experiences etc .   Interestingly this is a skill which reading a lot of fiction (especially historical or foreign ) helps a person gain.

  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Basically you have it, except  that you knowing peanut paste exists does NOTHING to increase the probability that i am telling the truth about having it for breakfast 

Increase compared with what? The definite existence of peanut paste does contribute to the higher plausibility of your report about eating it compared with there really having been a doorway in the sky as told in your report about that.

If your point is that you could be fibbing about both, then thanks for the heads-up, but that thought had already occurred to me. Which doesn't change that one report is more plausible than the other, for the reason stated.

4 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

The fact that you know dogs exist does NOTHING to prove that i own one This discussion is not about the existence of things, but about the abilty of one person to prove to another that they had contact/experience   with a thing  ( god /dog/wife /peanut paste/  cosmic consciousness)

Other posters, most recently (I think) @Liquid Gardens, have pointed out that "proof" is not the focus of interest. Neither of us can prove anything to one another in the strongest sense of the word. That has nothing to do with some claims being more plausible than others, nor does it prevent the presentation of evidence when such is available.

As to dogs, I am on record as being less than fully confident that you do own any dogs, since you profess not to notice aspects of their species-typical behavior that seem to me hard to miss. There are other explanations of that, so I still accept your statements about dog ownership, an acceptance in which the definite existence of dogs looms especially large.

4 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Your disbelief in, and lack of experience with, a couple of those doesn't lessen the probability  that I know them.

I'm the wrong person to raise that with. I have had at least one of your experiences, an unplugged radio playing for a short while. I did not interpret that as a supernatural event nor as an alien intervention. Also, as just mentioned, I have lots of experience with dogs, and that doesn't help at all with my acceptance of some of your statements about your interactions with them. I accept that you own dogs despite some of your reports, not because of them.

The experiment's been done, Mr W. The results don't increase my estimate of the probability of your interpretation of reality being correct.

4 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Me having peanut paste for breakfast is no more/less possible /plausible  than me having contact with the cosmic consciousness, given that both exist and are real physical things  

(Emphasis added.) You've almost got it. Hypothetically (what given that means), if both definitely existed, then there would be no difference in plausibility between reports about them attributable to a factor that by hypothesis wasn't different.

Your remaining difficulty is that that isn't the given in the real world. In the real world, peanut paste definitely exists, and flying doorways remain to be established. Given that you say you saw one, it's on you to furnish evidence that there was one for you to have seen. Given that you haven't done so, the plausibility of there having been such a doorway is pitiful.

=

@Will Due - you really are doing much better lately with finding your own words, and are more effective in discussion for doing so. I thank you again for your answers to my questions.

Edited by eight bits
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Not sure where you live Nuclear but my point was that I cant prove it to "you" 

Then you did a poor job of explaining your point, as you said "You can not know", which we obviously can know, given the right tools and circumstances. 

4 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

If you  were here and observed me eat  it, you would know the truth.

I don't need to observe you to prove you had peanut butter. That can be objectively proven otherwise. Love for your wife is not the same as being able to verify stomach contents.

4 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

You do NOT know the CC exists 

Neither do you, so that makes two of us. But sure, whatever floats your fantastical boat. :unsure2:

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • The topic was locked
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.