People claiming "personal" surety of gods existance.

roosh

robindch wrote: »

Interesting to see you flatly contradict yourself within the space of one sentence!

can you highlight the contradiction?

roosh

robindch wrote: »

Interesting to see you flatly contradict yourself within the space of one sentence!

i think it sounds more like tautology, having read it again

roosh

Nemi wrote: »

Absolutely. But bear in mind, that's an arbitrary assumption I'm willing to make. I've arbitrarily decided that there is no percentage in me taking the existence of others to be doubtful.

The issue is, that such an assumption is subject to scrutiny, and scientific discovery. To speak of Human Beings and Human knowledge would require a theory of how this operates at the Quantum Level.

Indeed, one's assumption about oneself, is equally subject to scrutiny, and spiritual science.

If the assumption upon which the reasoning is based is incorrect, then the probability, is very high, that the reasoning is incorrect.

Nemi wrote: »

That's fine when we're talking about an abstract "A". But you're actually hiding the equivocation I'm talking about there.

Talk about it as God. There's the concept of God, all-powerful creator and so forth. And there's the spiritual experience of God (which, I must admit, has eluded me, but which I'm totally willing to accept others feel).

The spiritual experience might support someone's belief in the all-powerful creator. But they are not the same thing. I think this is lost a bit in your "experience of A = A" statements. (And, no, I don't think the point is addressed by saying the concept is part of the experience. That, I feel, is also not addressing the point).

No arguments here. Logic can only work in this situation based on conceptualising the non-conceptual. I have been at pains to point this out.

The issue with the concept of God, is that there are too many pre-conceptions of what it means. Most people take it to be an entity outside themselves, a wizard of Oz style puppeteer, living outside the realms of our existence.

This is probably understandable that such a notion has arisen, but it is common sensical to even contemplate the idea, that the meaning of this concept, handed down over thousands of years, and translated and re-translated, has got lost in translation somewhere along the line.

The problem is that we tend to have our own ideas about what it means, and our own ideas about what we think others think it means. There may of course, be many who take it to be "a cosmic magic man hiding in the clouds", but again, it is commonsensical to think that this, at the very least, could, be a misinterpretation of the concept, for the reasons stated above - and more.

roosh

robindch wrote: »

I rest my case.

Clustering Illusion

liamw

mangaroosh wrote: »

The conclusion that should be drawn is, that if someone says that they have had a personal experience with God, it does not imply that God exists, as the person could misinterpret their experience.

That is not to say, that someone cannot experience what is referred to as God.

An understanding of the concept is required, before it can, with any degree of accuracy, be applied to the experience.

mangaroosh wrote: »

In so far as the experience can be described as "an experience of God", then it follows logically that God exists.

Now you're just arbitarily calling the experience 'God', which is just confusing everything.

You could replace 'God' with 'Pink Unicorn' everywhere in your argument. The concept of a pink unicorn is known from fantasy books, the concept of God is known from the Bible (/fantasy books). When a human has one of these overwhelming 'experiences' they are going to, by default, tend to attribute it to that entity that they already know of.

Again your argument says absolutely nothing about the existence of the deity. I thought we had agreed this.

STOP ARBITARILY CALLING THE EXPERIENCE 'GOD'.

Memnoch

mangaroosh wrote: »

I have been at pains to point out, that we are trying to use conceptual logic and apply it to something which is essentially non-conceptual.

Purely based on logic, if we assume that there is an experience of God (or A), then the preposition (the word) of, implies the relationship between experience and God.

If there is no God, there is no relationship between experience and God.

The word of implies the existence of something which can be experienced, i.e. the existence of something that can be related to.

That of course is a matter of logic, on the basis of a statement or a conceptualisation. An experience and its description are separate. In so far as the experience can be described as "an experience of God", then it follows logically that God exists.


However, there may not be an experience of God at all. The discussion has been based on the assumption, of an experience of God.




That is a major assumption about what the experience is. Of course, all of these could lead to someone claiming an experience of God, that does not meant that they are correctly describing their experience. They could be incorrectly labelling their experience, according to their interpretation of what they think God is.

God, albeit an english word, is derived from a spiritual concept. Therefore an understanding of spirituality would be [more than] helpful, when interpreting the concept.

The fact that you try and dress all of this up in over-complicated language, detracts from your argument, and it doesn't really impress me (or most posters here I would gather).



There is no maze. The initial response to the OPs question, regarding personal experience, was to show that personal experience is the only way in which anything can be known.

The rest has been the result of answering replies to that original post. I have merely been following the maze!

Ah I see it now, we come to the all to familiar circular logic...

This is underpants gnome reasoning at it's best. Because you are throwing in a secret assumption you know you cannot prove, even by your own convoluted arguments.

You're saying that if the experience of God exists, then god must also exist.

Except I don't see how you get from...

A THINKS he experienced God. But there is simply no way of knowing whether A did ACTUALLY experience God, or whether it was a mental illness, hallucinations, delusion, a dream (quite common), a lie (even commoner), or simply wishful thinking.

Yet you gloss from that and jump from stealing underpants (the so called "experience of god") to profit (god). Only there is no causal link in between, and that is what your clever appearing (but not being) language is designed to hide.

You want to make the assumption that the "experience of God" is actually an experience of "God" but you have supplied no evidence or logic to support that.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

Firstly, I was expecting a 'no, I think you have it wrong' post back from you. Thank you for shattering my preconceptions.:)

JimiTime wrote: »

Yes.

No, nothing to do with scientific assessment. Just that the events happened.

Ok, so we are assuming the events happened but we aren't assuming that I have verified they happened to any degree.

So we are making no assumption as to how confident I am that these events actually happened as I remember experiencing them.

JimiTime wrote: »

The vision IS your personal assessment. No-one else saw it but you. The effects is what others seen as well as yourself. Thats the point I'm making. You have something tangiable as a result of this vision, but the vision itself was only seen by you, like the Paul incident.

But it isn't tangible, that point. If I'm imagining Jesus in the sky I might also be imagining meeting someone in Damascus who cures my blindness.

Believing that this confirmed my vision is foolish because I haven't got around to confirming these later results of my vision, in the first place.

If I can confirm that these results of my visions are as I think they are then yes I would be much less likely to dismiss my own vision as merely a delusion of the mind.

But we have also moved out of the realm of personal assessment and into the realm of critical study and science because I'm confirming the "tangible results" of my vision externally to just my personal assessment of them.

And in this hypothetical, as you said above, we haven't done that. So I can't.

JimiTime wrote: »

My point has never been one of accepting 'visions' etc at face value.

It is not the vision you are accepting at face value, it is the events after the vision.

You seem to think there should be no question to Paul that he actually did met a man in Damascus who cured his blindness, that he can just take that as a fact, and as such this lends great weight to his vision.

JimiTime wrote: »

It seemed to me, that you were saying that even if you had tangiable effects (and convincing ones at that not wishy washy ones) from such an experience, you would write off the experience as a trick of the mind.

No. It is that I cannot have "tangible effects" based purely on my own personal assessment alone of the events after my vision.

How convincing these tangible effects are to me is (or should) be irrelevant. I can be as mistaken about a man curing my blindness as I can be about seeing a vision in the sky.

Paul cannot trust that his recollection of events after the vision is accurate, and as such based on his personal assessment alone he cannot say he actually has tangible effects of his vision in the first place.

If Paul imagined the vision he could also have imagined the man curing his blindness.

Imagine Paul had had a stroke (which given the description of the vision is not an unlikely thing). He recollection of the events afters would be servilely disrupted by this.

It would be foolish of me, as Paul, to think that I had established tangible facts after my vision if all I had done was simply experienced them and remembered them as such (ie personal assessment)

I would need to confirm them to a level that removed my personal assessment and memory. And if this is the case then we are no longer talking about personal assessment.

If (and it is a big IF) I established to standards I was happy with and external to my own recollection, that yes another man claimed to have a vision about me using details that are hard to explain, that yes I was miraculously cured of my blindness as soon as he touched me etc etc then I would be far less likely to dismiss my vision as a personal hallucination.

The point is though that you seem to think these things are just a given, that if Paul remembers a man curing him of his blindness then a man cured him of his blindness, that if he remembers the man claiming to have a vision then the man had a vision.

This is what I mean by accepting things at face value. The brain does not switch from untrustworthy mode to trustworthy mode. Saying something like you would dismiss a vision if it was just a voice in your head, but if it was a voice in your head that said go outside and meet your wife and you went out side and met your wife you would accept it is foolish, because you might not actually be outside meeting your wife.

It is the tangible effects part in which I think you are too naive and not skeptical enough.

You can disagree, but again the point is that we have different standards of skepticism, and as such the claim that I, or others here, or Dawkins, would accept these things as you are Paul or another religious person would, is inaccurate.

sonicthebadger*

mangaroosh wrote: »

This has been addressed whenever it has been raised.

If something does not exist, then it cannot be experienced.

The issue lies in the conceptualisation of the experience, as the description of an experience, is not the experience itself.

While this may sound like fancy langauge and philosophising, but it remains true.

So... Synesthesia then. How does that work in the context you describe above?

It is experienced, thus it exists? Surely that cannot hold?

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

Ok, so we are assuming the events happened but we aren't assuming that I have verified they happened to any degree.

So we are making no assumption as to how confident I am that these events actually happened as I remember experiencing them.



But it isn't tangible, that point. If I'm imagining Jesus in the sky I might also be imagining meeting someone in Damascus who cures my blindness.

Believing that this confirmed my vision is foolish because I haven't got around to confirming these later results of my vision, in the first place.

If I can confirm that these results of my visions are as I think they are then yes I would be much less likely to dismiss my own vision as merely a delusion of the mind.

But we have also moved out of the realm of personal assessment and into the realm of critical study and science because I'm confirming the "tangible results" of my vision externally to just my personal assessment of them.

And in this hypothetical, as you said above, we haven't done that. So I can't.



It is not the vision you are accepting at face value, it is the events after the vision.

You seem to think there should be no question to Paul that he actually did met a man in Damascus who cured his blindness, that he can just take that as a fact, and as such this lends great weight to his vision.



No. It is that I cannot have "tangible effects" based purely on my own personal assessment alone of the events after my vision.

How convincing these tangible effects are to me is (or should) be irrelevant. I can be as mistaken about a man curing my blindness as I can be about seeing a vision in the sky.

Paul cannot trust that his recollection of events after the vision is accurate, and as such based on his personal assessment alone he cannot say he actually has tangible effects of his vision in the first place.

If Paul imagined the vision he could also have imagined the man curing his blindness.

Imagine Paul had had a stroke (which given the description of the vision is not an unlikely thing). He recollection of the events afters would be servilely disrupted by this.

It would be foolish of me, as Paul, to think that I had established tangible facts after my vision if all I had done was simply experienced them and remembered them as such (ie personal assessment)

I would need to confirm them to a level that removed my personal assessment and memory. And if this is the case then we are no longer talking about personal assessment.

If (and it is a big IF) I established to standards I was happy with and external to my own recollection, that yes another man claimed to have a vision about me using details that are hard to explain, that yes I was miraculously cured of my blindness as soon as he touched me etc etc then I would be far less likely to dismiss my vision as a personal hallucination.

The point is though that you seem to think these things are just a given, that if Paul remembers a man curing him of his blindness then a man cured him of his blindness, that if he remembers the man claiming to have a vision then the man had a vision.

This is what I mean by accepting things at face value. The brain does not switch from untrustworthy mode to trustworthy mode. Saying something like you would dismiss a vision if it was just a voice in your head, but if it was a voice in your head that said go outside and meet your wife and you went out side and met your wife you would accept it is foolish, because you might not actually be outside meeting your wife.

It is the tangible effects part in which I think you are too naive and not skeptical enough.

You can disagree, but again the point is that we have different standards of skepticism, and as such the claim that I, or others here, or Dawkins, would accept these things as you are Paul or another religious person would, is inaccurate.

I just don't have the patience for you Wicknight:) I've already wasted 2 hours of my life by going to see Inception this week, I can't afford to waste any more:p:)

Bowing out politely:)

liamw

JimiTime wrote: »

I just don't have the patience for you Wicknight:) I've already wasted 2 hours of my life by going to see Inception this week, I can't afford to waste any more:p:)

Bowing out politely:)

Imagine how much time you've wasted praying? Maybe you should invest more time here and learn that every one of your arguments for believing in Yahweh can be countered

Zombrex

mangaroosh wrote: »

The source of consciousness ... have not yet been discovered.

Yes actually it has, it is the human brain.

What you are doing is saying that because we cannot know for absolute certain that this is the case (just like we can't know anything for absolute certain) and there is always the possibility that there is as yet some unknown source for consciousness, lets assume there is an unknown source for consciousness and then say that the current medical science explanation for consciousness is not the correct one.

Like I said earlier, just because there is a possibility that something in science is wrong doesn't mean it is, and assuming it has to be is as unsupported as stating that we know something in science for certain.

mangaroosh wrote: »

Whether we are brains in a vat or not, the statement holds true, because Quantum Mechanics has shown us, that what we perceive as our relative universe, is an illusion. It is our subjective perception of the Quantum world.

I'm not quite sure what you mean here but I suspect "illusion" is not the word you mean to use here.

It is correct that how we perceive the world (such as seeing a wall as a single unified mass) is not how things are at small detail (the wall is actually 98% empty space and the reason we cannot walk through it is to do with force between our atoms) but that is not an illusion, it is a matter of detail, like looking at New York from space, you wouldn't say that this is an "illusion" of New York simply because you cannot make out individual hot dog sellers.

mangaroosh wrote: »

When we are talking about the existence of something, it generally has to do with the nature of reality, as reality is the state of things as they actually exist.

Which is irrelevant to us if how they actually exist is different to how they appear to the point where this difference is undetectable.

mangaroosh wrote: »

If we talk about the existence of blue fluff, then red fluff appearing blue is very relevant, because red fluff appearing blue, means that we cannot say that blue fluff exists.

We cannot say for certain that blue fluff exists. But we cannot say anything for certain. We can only go on how reality appears to be. That is what science does. If something is different to how it presents itself in all tests and experiences, science cannot tell the difference.

That does not give us carte blanche though to start assuming that things must be different to how they appear to be, which you seem to be doing.

mangaroosh wrote: »

The issue is, that not everyone who has claimed to have experienced God, has had a stroke, or is certifiably insane.

You can't support that statement though, so it is merely wishful thinking, hope that there is something more interesting going on when in reality we have no evidence for that.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

I just don't have the patience for you Wicknight:) I've already wasted 2 hours of my life by going to see Inception this week, I can't afford to waste any more:p:)

Bowing out politely:)

Fair enough.

Can you try and remember what I said the next time though, we have had a number of discussions where you have "bowed out politely" and then come back saying something that I was trying to correct you on. I'm telling you I don't have the same standard of acceptance of things as you do (your options are to either think I'm lying or accept this) and I'm saying that based on everything I've read about Dawkins he doesn't either. These are pretty simple statements, the lengths of my posts are merely because you seem to be refusing to accept what I'm telling you. But anyway...

And yes Inception was crap, I'm glad you aren't one of the many who have drunk the Inception Kool Aid and think it is the best movie ever.

liamw

Wicknight wrote: »

Yes and Inception was crap, I'm glad you aren't one of the many who have drunk the Inception Kool Aid and think it is the best movie ever.

I have not seen Inception yet but everyone is raving about it. Without giving anything away, is it one of those movies that portrays itself as being really really smart and mindblowing, but isn't? Did you like The Matrix?

Zombrex

mangaroosh wrote: »

Just so there is no confusion, there is a big difference between Spiritualism and Spirituality.

Just as with science, there are different spiritual[ity] "theories", and just as with science, there are quite a few non-mainstream "theories" that may have less credibility.

And unlike science spirituality is wishy washy nonsense, guesses by people who are unsatisfied by the, what they see as, boring answers science has been giving over the last 100 years as to the nature of humanity in the universe.

As they say in Fight Club, You are not a beautiful and unique snowflake.

Spirituality is for people who have a hard time accepting that. It places human experience and the human mind in a more privileged place in reality that it rightly deserves so people can feel more important about themselves.

Zombrex

liamw wrote: »

I have not seen Inception yet but everyone is raving about it. Without giving anything away, is it one of those movies that portrays itself as being really really smart and mindblowing, but isn't? Did you like The Matrix?

Nail on the head.

Perhaps there is hope for Jimi after all, as I think anyone with a shred of skeptical training will spend the whole moving going "Nope, this is just stupid"

I'm all for escapism at the movies, I don't need to know how Luke Skywalker breaths in space, or how the big laser in Independence day causes a gasoline explosion in the Empire State Building.

But Inception plays itself as being really smart when in fact the entire movie is an exercise in plot devices and exposition.

King Mob

mangaroosh wrote: »

Just as with science, there are different spiritual[ity] "theories",.

Not "Just as with science".
In Science you actually have to have verifiable evidence and your model must accurately make falsifiable predictions before it can be called a theory.
I would love to see a few examples of spiritual theories that meet these criterion.

mangaroosh wrote: »

and just as with science, there are quite a few non-mainstream "theories" that may have less credibility

Now the reason some theories have less credibility is very simple.
They simply aren't supported by verifiable evidence.
The scientific community doesn't just randomly pick an idea to dump on....

mangaroosh wrote: »

Buddhism would be one of the more credible spiritual[ity] "theories", and some of it's "guesses" are being supported by scientific research.

Oh, this should be good.
Can you elaborate on this at all.
(I ask knowing full well we're gonna get some quantum mysticism nonsense.)

Memnoch

Wicknight wrote: »

Nail on the head.

Perhaps there is hope for Jimi after all, as I think anyone with a shred of skeptical training will spend the whole moving going "Nope, this is just stupid"

I'm all for escapism at the movies, I don't need to know how Luke Skywalker breaths in space, or how the big laser in Independence day causes a gasoline explosion in the Empire State Building.

But Inception plays itself as being really smart when in fact the entire movie is an exercise in plot devices and exposition.

Not to meander off topic but I would consider myself to be severely sceptical and I still consider Inception to be one of the best films I've ever seen.

Zombrex

Memnoch wrote: »

Not to meander off topic but I would consider myself to be severely sceptical and I still consider Inception to be one of the best films I've ever seen.

well yeah but you're an idiot

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

Fair enough.

Can you try and remember what I said the next time though,

Ha ha. No problem.

we have had a number of discussions where you have "bowed out politely"

Indeed we have. I have a low pain threshold

and then come back saying something that I was trying to correct you on. I'm telling you I don't have the same standard of acceptance of things as you do (your options are to either think I'm lying or accept this) and I'm saying that based on everything I've read about Dawkins he doesn't either. These are pretty simple statements, the lengths of my posts are merely because you seem to be refusing to accept what I'm telling you. But anyway...

We were on two completely different pages. Maybe I didn't present it clearly enough. Either way, I passed the point of trying to focus you on what my point was whoevers fault it was.

And yes Inception was crap, I'm glad you aren't one of the many who have drunk the Inception Kool Aid and think it is the best movie ever.

Not even the Ben and Jerry's could ease the pain.

magicbastarder

i haven't seen it, so therefore i have no bias on the matter, and my opinion on it is more valid than either of yours.
it's pretty good.

JimiTime

liamw wrote: »

Imagine how much time you've wasted praying? Maybe you should invest more time here and learn that every one of your arguments for believing in Yahweh can be countered

I'm in no doubt that there are counter arguements. They're just unconvincing. The virus has got me good I'm afraid.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

We were on two completely different pages. Maybe I didn't present it clearly enough. Either way, I passed the point of trying to focus you on what my point was whoevers fault it was.

I'm really not following what you mean by that. You asked me questions, and I answered them. I may be missing your point, but you do you accept that I answered you questions?

If I was Paul I would not accept my vision. Dawkins wouldn't. Most people here wouldn't. I have tried to explain why I wouldn't (that I wouldn't accept what you call tangible evidence), but ultimately that isn't necessary to simply answer the question.

Does that satisfy your question? Even if you think it is silly, or being too skeptical, and you feel I'm not getting your explanation as to why it is silly.

roosh

Morbert wrote: »

I agree with some of this, (where we differ significantly are the bits in bold). But while the raw, undefined experience may be associated with different things (a computer simulation in one scenario, and actually falling in another) it is the same in both scenarios nonetheless. It is this 'decoupling' of the experience from things that is the key.

So let's modify one of the scenarios. Let's subtract the computer that is simulating falling so that one scenario consist of a man experiencing falling (whether or not he has defined/conceptualised it as such yet), who is actually falling, and the other consist of a man with an identical experience, who is neither falling nor attached to a computer. The latter certainly doesn't seem very physical, but it is still logically consistent if we strip away any assumptions about the physical/chemical brain, and the assumption that experiences emerge from interactions between an 'experiencer' and an 'experienced'. We have arrived at solipsism. Then, if we wanted to strip away solipsist assumptions, we could subtract the man/monk from the scenario, and have only the experience of falling/sensation of falling, a scenario which, again, is logically consistent. From there, it's a short hop to nihilism by admitting that the existence of this sensation must be assumed i.e. It must be accepted as an axiom, and cannot be proven from any necessry truths.

If we work from the logical reduction from the computer simulation, or "reality", to nihilism - which, while perhaps being logically consistent, is materially different - and operate from the statement:

Morbert wrote: »

the existence of this sensation must be assumed i.e. It must be accepted as an axiom, and cannot be proven from any necessry truths.

The issue again, is with trying to apply conceptual logic, to what, in reality, is ineffable. It may perhaps be more conducvie to attempt to introduce some practicality to all the logic.

We can start without any assumptions whatsoever, no "necessary truths" from which we try to prove anything.

Now, as you sit reading this (or after you have read this), take a moment to stop with the logical analysis, and just become aware of your surroundings.

Focus on your breath for a few moments, pay attention to it, and see if you can focus on 7 complete breath cycles (in and out).

As you breath in, become aware of the sensations associated with breathing in, maybe the feeling of the air flowing in through your nostrils or mouth, the rise of your chest or your diaphragm. Be aware of any other sense perceptions around you.

See if you can focus on 7 complete cycles of breath.

Stop reading and try this (if you wish of course)

Memnoch

mangaroosh wrote: »

The issue again, is with trying to apply conceptual logic, to what, in reality, is ineffable. It may perhaps be more conducvie to attempt to introduce some practicality to all the logic.

And this is really what your entire argument boils down to I suspect.

You cannot prove the existence of "God," emperically, nor can you prove it "logically," so lets just play with the logic in such a way so that it can be manipulated to prove whatever we want it to.

I.E. Let's just make up whatever we want in order to satisfy and justify our belief in the existence of "god."

Of course, the problem with this is that once you start messing with logic, then it is no longer so. And so you try to use a flawed logic to prove what you believe in, and yet expect us to attribute the same worth or merit to that flawed logic as we would to a traditional logical argument. (which you abandoned a long time ago).

I suspect you know it too.

roosh

liamw wrote: »

Now you're just arbitarily calling the experience 'God', which is just confusing everything.

You could replace 'God' with 'Pink Unicorn' everywhere in your argument. The concept of a pink unicorn is known from fantasy books, the concept of God is known from the Bible (/fantasy books). When a human has one of these overwhelming 'experiences' they are going to, by default, tend to attribute it to that entity that they already know of.

Again your argument says absolutely nothing about the existence of the deity. I thought we had agreed this.

STOP ARBITARILY CALLING THE EXPERIENCE 'GOD'.

Both statements relate to two completely separate points (in discussions with separate people), and two distinct contexts.

1)The first relates to the issue of someone conceptualising their experience, where a person can have an experience and incorrectly label it as God, or where someone could have an experience and label it as God, based on a spiritual interpretation of the concept.

There are two potentially, different [categories of] expereinces there.



2)The second is based on the ability to infer the existence of A, from the experience of A. This is simply based on logic, as opposed to attempting to describe an experience.


You do raise a very valid point, about the origins of the concept of God. The origin of the concept of [a monotheistic] God is from the bible, the books of Judaism and Islam, as well as other [originally] spiritual traditions. The bible itself does not belong to the "fantasy" genre, rather the spirituality genre. This could indeed be where the confusion arises, as "fantasy books" require only the conceptual mind, whereas spirituality involves an investigation of the conceptual mind, an investigation of "the self", the nature of mind and phenomena.

In order to interpret the concepts correctly, there is a pre-requisite for spiritual empiricism, or spiritual investigation, or put another way, spiritual practice.

This is what is being said, about understanding the existence of the deity.

roosh

Memnoch wrote: »

Ah I see it now, we come to the all to familiar circular logic...

This is underpants gnome reasoning at it's best. Because you are throwing in a secret assumption you know you cannot prove, even by your own convoluted arguments.

You're saying that if the experience of God exists, then god must also exist.

Except I don't see how you get from...


A THINKS he experienced God. But there is simply no way of knowing whether A did ACTUALLY experience God, or whether it was a mental illness, hallucinations, delusion, a dream (quite common), a lie (even commoner), or simply wishful thinking.

Yet you gloss from that and jump from stealing underpants (the so called "experience of god") to profit (god). Only there is no causal link in between, and that is what your clever appearing (but not being) language is designed to hide.

You want to make the assumption that the "experience of God" is actually an experience of "God" but you have supplied no evidence or logic to support that.

No circular reasoning, what has been discussed thus far and what has been introduced above, are two completely separate conditions, but clarifies nicely a clear issue for confusion.

The first, which has been the one that has been discussed, is:
"if the experience of God exists, then god must also exist."


The conjunction if introduces a conditional clause, which means, that the truth of the latter statement is conditional on the truth of the former.

So here, the statement "then God must also exist" is dependent on the truth of there being an "experience of God".


The statement "the experience of God exists", implies the existence of the experience of God

- here we go again -


The discussion has been based on, how [the statement] "God exists", can [logically] be inferred from [the statement] "the experience of God exists".


What you have proposed above, where A thinks he has experienced God, is different from trying to get from, the existence of the experience of God (because the assumption of existence is implied in the statement), to the existence of God.

But it is a very valid point. I'll try and address it in a separate post.

Zombrex

mangaroosh wrote: »

The first, which has been the one that has been discussed, is:
"if the experience of God exists, then god must also exist."

I think you are using that term differently to everyone else here.

For example, the experience of being drunk is a whole set of physical and mental impairments.

That is the experience, it what a person feels when drunk.

It is not actually necessary to be drunk to experience the feeling of being drunk, we merely associate it with being drunk because that is the most common method to trigger this experience.

You could say, though I'm not sure anyone here would agree it is the correct use of English, that the "experience of being drunk" means one must be drunk because if you are experiencing something you must classify it based on what triggered it.

So if you feel "drunk" but after not taking alcohol but say instead drugs, then it is incorrect to say you are experiencing drunk feeling because you aren't drunk. You are experiencing being high on drugs, even if those particular drugs produce an effect exactly like being drunk.

So when you say experience God you mean God must be involved in the process some how otherwise the experience is of something else.

That doesn't appear to be how others are using the term.

They are saying in essence that you experience being drunk, that is a common day classification for the symptoms, even if alcohol had nothing to do with it.

Equally you can say you experience God even if God has nothing to do with it.

sonicthebadger*

sonicthebadger* wrote: »

So... Synesthesia then. How does that work in the context you describe above?

It is experienced, thus it exists? Surely that cannot hold?

I always feel I must be on the right track when my question is ignored. :pac:

roosh

Memnoch wrote: »

Except I don't see how you get from...


A THINKS he experienced God. But there is simply no way of knowing whether A did ACTUALLY experience God, or whether it was a mental illness, hallucinations, delusion, delusion (quite common), a lie (even commoner), or simply wishful thinking.

Cheers, this is an issue that clearly needs clarifying, and is at the heart of the issue.

Here we have person A, who has labelled their experience as "an excperience of God". The question is, how do they know it was not one of:
mental illness
hallucinations (trick of the mind)
delusion
a lie

Firstly, all of the above scenarios carry with them a certain pre-conception of what the experienece of God must be like, or that it could potentially fit into one of those categories.

If we take the example of a person who has experienced God serendipitously, that is, has not followed a spiritual path, but has a certain experience.

There may perhaps be an assumption here, that the persn classifies the experience immediately as "God". This however, need not be the case. The person may perhaps have an experience, which may only last for a brief moment, and the person may return to their "normal" state of being. They may perhaps forget about the experience, and return to going about their normal business.

There may perhaps be no classification of the experience as "an experience of God", at this point. A person may then, for whatever reason, read a particular piece of literature (other than the bible), which explains in vivid detail, the experience that they have had. In this literature, the person would acquire a certain vocabulary with which to explain the experience. This literature may refer to the experience as God, but equally point out the flaws of such a [now] closed concept. The person may still not describe the experience as God, but would have vocabulary with which to describe the experience.

The author of this literature, may perhaps reference, certain other literature, which the reader may then explore for themselves. Upon researching this other literature, and perhaps practising some of what this literature prescribes, the person may develop an experiential understanding of the concepts. Still the experience does not need to be classified as "God".

The person can then perhaps explore the tradition, within which they were brought up, which may perhaps be christianity. The person may perhaps apply this newly acquired experiential understanding, to the concepts of that tradition, and find that those concepts are entirely more rational when looked at in this way. There may perhaps be some inkling to label the experience as God then, because these concepts themselves, which make more sense in this new light, relate to the concept of God - and indeed reference God directly.

The person may then perhaps "research" other traditions, which have a concept of God, and see what the origins of these traditions were. This person may discover that all the traditions which reference the concept of God, were all based on a concept known as "spirituality", which involved certain practices, most notably mediation. This concept, or rather practice, of "spirituality", may perhaps, be the framework through which the original concepts of christianity, were [re]viewed by the person.

This may lead the person to conclude, that the concept, or lable of "God", could reasonably be applied to their experience.

roosh

sonicthebadger* wrote: »

So... Synesthesia then. How does that work in the context you describe above?

It is experienced, thus it exists? Surely that cannot hold?

what is referred to as Synesthesia exists.

The exact nature of Synesthesia is not presumed.

Memnoch

mangaroosh wrote: »

Cheers, this is an issue that clearly needs clarifying, and is at the heart of the issue.....
This may lead the person to conclude, that the concept, or lable of "God", could reasonably be applied to their experience.

You're building a house of cards.

A person can take any number of pieces of unverified and incorrect information and use them to make an argument. That doesn't change the "truth" or "falsehood," of the original information.

When one person lies, it's still a lie even if a hundred other people also tell the same lie.

What you've described above is how someone has an experience, and then goes out and finds stories to support a particular interpretation of that experience, i.e. "god." The problem is that not ONE of those sources or stories can be shown to be true. There is no evidence to support them.

So what you're really talking about is conjuring 10 or 100 made up "facts," which on their own don't have any validity, and adding them up together to come up with another made up "fact." But the cumulation of all this stuff that's made up does not have any more vailidity than the made up stuff and is still a figment of the person's imagination.

mangaroosh wrote: »

No circular reasoning, what has been discussed thus far and what has been introduced above, are two completely separate conditions, but clarifies nicely a clear issue for confusion.
...I'll try and address it in a separate post.

BS. You've been playing semantics and trying to equate one with the other.

But let's make it simple.

There is absolutely zero evidence to support such a thing as the "experience of god."

There is only the (false)perception that one has had such an experience.

The latter does not prove or support the former. No matter how much you may want it to. Since there are innumerable explanations for the so called perception that do not end with "god." And the evidence for all of these explanations is far greater than the conclusion that you want to reach with it.

roosh

Wicknight wrote: »

Yes actually it has, it is the human brain.

What you are doing is saying that because we cannot know for absolute certain that this is the case (just like we can't know anything for absolute certain) and there is always the possibility that there is as yet some unknown source for consciousness, lets assume there is an unknown source for consciousness and then say that the current medical science explanation for consciousness is not the correct one.

Like I said earlier, just because there is a possibility that something in science is wrong doesn't mean it is, and assuming it has to be is as unsupported as stating that we know something in science for certain.

The fact that there exists, what is referred to as "the hard problem of consciousness", not only indicates, it proves, that consciousness is not yet fully understood.

There is a further issue also, as consciousnes is associated with the mind, and to suggest that the brain is the source of both, is to ignore the issue that the brain is a visual representation in the mind. The perception of a brain, might perhaps require the consciousness of an observer to collapse the wave function, that gives rise to the perception of the brain.

Again, there is no need to assume that scienctists haven't already "cracked it", but these very real issues in science, are clear indications that consciousness clearly isn't very well understood, and neither is its source.

I would be very interested to read the research, that comes to the unequivocal conclusion asserted above, and that incorporates a Quantum Mechanical description of consciousness, as the brain is afterall, made up of quantum parts. We can assume that QM is a complete theory if needs be.

Wicknight wrote: »

I'm not quite sure what you mean here but I suspect "illusion" is not the word you mean to use here.

It is correct that how we perceive the world (such as seeing a wall as a single unified mass) is not how things are at small detail (the wall is actually 98% empty space and the reason we cannot walk through it is to do with force between our atoms) but that is not an illusion, it is a matter of detail, like looking at New York from space, you wouldn't say that this is an "illusion" of New York simply because you cannot make out individual hot dog sellers.

Perceiving a structure, which is 98% empty space, as a single unified mass with 0% empty space, would qualify as an illusion as:
"an instance of a wrong or misinterpreted perception of a sensory experience"

Wicknight wrote: »

Which is irrelevant to us if how they actually exist is different to how they appear to the point where this difference is undetectable.

It may be irrelevant to "us", but it is certainly relevant to the question of somethings existence.

There is an assumption there however, that the difference will be undetectable.

Wicknight wrote: »

We cannot say for certain that blue fluff exists. But we cannot say anything for certain. We can only go on how reality appears to be. That is what science does. If something is different to how it presents itself in all tests and experiences, science cannot tell the difference.

That does not give us carte blanche though to start assuming that things must be different to how they appear to be, which you seem to be doing.

Again, we can know for sure and for certain that what is referred to as experience (consciousness) exists.

We do not need to assume that things are different than they appear to be, the current mutual exclusivity of QM and GR suggests that one of them is incorrect. We do not need to assume which one may be either.

However, insofar as science is incapable of telling the difference between appearance and reality, then it is incapable of being an adjudicator on the question of the existence of something, for the reason, that the question of somethings existence is very much dependent on reality.
As reality is the state of things as they actually exist, not the state of things as they appear to exist.

The existence of God pertains directly to the state of things as they actually exist. If science is incapable of making the distinction of what is real and what is illusory, then it cannot make the distinction as to whether God exists or not. Or for that matter whether anything exists or not.

This would make any challenge to the existence of God, on the basis of a lack of scientific evidence, utterly meaningless.

This wouldn't be my own position, but this is the consequence of science not being able to determine appearance from reality.

Wicknight wrote: »

You can't support that statement though, so it is merely wishful thinking, hope that there is something more interesting going on when in reality we have no evidence for that.

I could perhaps claim to have experienced God myself, and if you so wish [at your own expense] provide medical records which verify that I have never had a stroke.

roosh

Wicknight wrote: »

And unlike science spirituality is wishy washy nonsense, guesses by people who are unsatisfied by the, what they see as, boring answers science has been giving over the last 100 years as to the nature of humanity in the universe.

As they say in Fight Club, You are not a beautiful and unique snowflake.

Spirituality is for people who have a hard time accepting that. It places human experience and the human mind in a more privileged place in reality that it rightly deserves so people can feel more important about themselves.

There is obviosuly a real lack of understanding, as to what spirituality actually is, or what it is about.

It may perhaps be worth informing the neuro-scientists, who are researching the effects of meditation on the brain, particularly in Buddhist monks, that spirituality (and it's practices) is wishy-washy nonsense.

Their time might, perhaps, be better spent trying to answer the issue of consciousness, so that it can, once and for all, be de-classified as supernatural.

sonicthebadger*

mangaroosh wrote: »

what is referred to as Synesthesia exists.

The exact nature of Synesthesia is not presumed.

If Synesthesia exists then experiences of a thing do not give an indication of the reality of that thing. We cannot rely on our senses. We must look at many different sources to uncover the cause of the experience. Would that not be so?

roosh

King Mob wrote: »

Not "Just as with science".
In Science you actually have to have verifiable evidence and your model must accurately make falsifiable predictions before it can be called a theory.
I would love to see a few examples of spiritual theories that meet these criterion.

Apologies, it may have been a little ambiguous, what was meant, was just as there are scientific theories, there are spiritual theories, which are subject to verification.

If we take the example of one of the more credible spiritual traditions, Buddhism. Buddhism postulates that there are two aspects to the mind, there is the conceptual mind and there is the "true nature" of the mind.

The conceptual mind gives rise to what we refer to as our "self", that is our beliefs, concepts and ideas that make up our identity. Buddhism postulates that we are identified with this state of mind, and that it is our attachment to this [ultimately false] sense of self, that is a major cause of suffering.

Buddhism postulates, that we can, through practice, become familiar with the inner workings of our own mind (and therefore potentially others), and learn to disidentify from our perception of ourselves, and from our attachment to "things" which can cause us suffering.

Buddhism postulates (and postulated 2500yrs ago) that all phenomena are dreamlike, that is visual representations in the mind - verified by atomic theory


Buddhim postulates (and postulated 2500yrs ago) that states of mind, such as compassion, can be cultivated - verified by the neuro-plastic nature of the brain.


Buddhism postulates, that the practice of meditation can cultivate positive states of mind, and offer insights into the nature of reality, through "insight" meditation.


To verify any of the above, may require a little more research into the concepts, just as one must research science before understanding the concets. The "experiment" for verifying the validity of the claims, is meditation, and just as with sciene, it might be worth getting instructions on how to carry out the "experiement" from people more experienced. And just as with science, the more practice one has with doing the experiments, the more proficient one is likely to get.

King Mob wrote: »

Now the reason some theories have less credibility is very simple.
They simply aren't supported by verifiable evidence.
The scientific community doesn't just randomly pick an idea to dump on....

Equally so with spirituality, but just as with science, this doesn't stop some people from following the theories.

King Mob wrote: »

Oh, this should be good.
Can you elaborate on this at all.
(I ask knowing full well we're gonna get some quantum mysticism nonsense.)

I'm not familiar with any of the claims of quantum mysticism, to be honest, but here are some articles on the research into meditation, as posted in the meditation in schools thread

King Mob

mangaroosh wrote: »

Apologies, it may have been a little ambiguous, what was meant, was just as there are scientific theories, there are spiritual theories, which are subject to verification.

Thing is, no spiritual theories can be (or have been) verifiable.

mangaroosh wrote: »

Buddhism postulates (and postulated 2500yrs ago) that all phenomena are dreamlike, that is visual representations in the mind - verified by atomic theory

That's not what atomic theory is.
Atomic theory states that matter is composed of discrete units called atoms.
That's it.

Also the thing is with relating current theories with stuff from ancient text is they are very easy to interpret after the fact.
Take the "predictions" of Nostrodamus for example.

mangaroosh wrote: »

Equally so with spirituality, but just as with science, this doesn't stop some people from following the theories.

I'd love to know how some spiritual theories can be any more supported by evidence than another, considering there is not verifiable evidence for any of them.

mangaroosh wrote: »

I'm not familiar with any of the claims of quantum mysticism, to be honest, but here are some articles on the research into meditation, as posted in the meditation in schools thread

Quantum Mysticism is basically butchering and misinterpreting quantum physics. Mostly for the purposes of making money.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mysticism

roosh

Memnoch wrote: »

And this is really what your entire argument boils down to I suspect.

You cannot prove the existence of "God," emperically, nor can you prove it "logically," so lets just play with the logic in such a way so that it can be manipulated to prove whatever we want it to.

I.E. Let's just make up whatever we want in order to satisfy and justify our belief in the existence of "god."

Of course, the problem with this is that once you start messing with logic, then it is no longer so. And so you try to use a flawed logic to prove what you believe in, and yet expect us to attribute the same worth or merit to that flawed logic as we would to a traditional logical argument. (which you abandoned a long time ago).

I suspect you know it too.

Interesting that in the accusation of abandoning logic, all logic was abandoned.


Also Interesting, is that the suggestion of introducing some practicality, or empiricism, to the matter, is scoffed at.

It may not be obvious, but nothing can be "proven" using logic. Only a belief can be formed, as to what should be true, given the assumptions X, Y, and Z.

If one could prove that something was true, using logic, then there would be no need for empirical investigation. M-theory would be considered proven.


Again, the contention all along has been that something needs to be experiencd in order to be known. This is the basis of the scientific method of empiricism.

wiki on empiricism wrote:

science is considered to be methodologically empirical in nature

wiki on empirical wrote:

A central concept in science and the scientific method is that all evidence must be empirical, or empirically based, that is, dependent on evidence or consequences that are observable by the senses

In order to experience something, it must be observable by the senses. So science relies hugely on personal experience, however it is the personal experience of the scientists it relies on.


As for the matter of proving God's existence empirically. Well, If I had attended weekly lectures on General Relativity when I wa a kid, given by a really boring lecturer, without ever really paying attention, who told me all the boring things I would have to do to verify the theory. If from that, I then developed an image of some "magic" Space-time substance that makes up the fabric of reality, that can magically bends and warp, but that I cannot actually see, then I probably would have stopped going to those lectures as soon as I could.

I probably would have developed a life where this "magic" space-time substance, which is all over the universe, was completely irrelevant to my life. If I then listened to the detractors of the concept of space-time, who told me, that there was no evidence to support it's existence, and who pilloried it as some cosmic rubber sheet in the sky, and said that it didn't matter to my life anyway. If I was told, all there was to support this idea of space-time was some mathematical theory, that some old guy dreamt up a few years ago, I would probably ridicule it too, and anyone who claimed that it explained how time ticks slower for some people, under certain conditions.



However, if I wanted to try and verify the claims made by the theory of General Relativity empirically - before they were verified - as opposed to [justifiably] believe them, or any other scientific theory, then I would probably need (in this country) to have done physics to leaving cert, then go on to do an undergrad in physics, then try and find employment in the relevant industry, to gain experience. I would probably need to start out at some low-level position and either try to work my way up, within the organisation, or move between organisations, in order to "climb the ladder".

I would probably need to go back and do a masters, in my chosen field, and write [perhaps another] thesis. Then continue with employment and gaining experience. It would probably be wise to do a Ph.D in the field. I would probably have to struggle and manipulate all the various concepts, associated with the theory, to try and get a more fundamental understanding of them.

Then hopefully, after a long and rewarding career, I might have some hoppe of verifying some of General Relativity.


Empirically verifying the existence of what is referred to as God, may perhaps be a little easier. On a basic level, one might try and start by meditating on a regular basis. This is an essential part of the empirical investigation. A person may possibly verify the existence of God, by this alone.

If a person encounters questions, as to how to practice meditation properly, it would be advisable to seek out a reputable teacher, from who to get instruction.

The teacher may use certain concepts that are unfamiliar, so some research into them might be helpful. The degree of research one does, might depend on the questions that arise, and indeed, perhaps no research may be necessary, just as penicillin was discovered serendipitously, so too might God.

While research into the theory is to be recommended, the caveat must be offered, empirical evidence is more important that conceptualisations, logic, or the testimony of others.

Morbert

mangaroosh wrote: »

If we work from the logical reduction from the computer simulation, or "reality", to nihilism - which, while perhaps being logically consistent, is materially different - and operate from the statement:

"the existence of this sensation must be assumed i.e. It must be accepted as an axiom, and cannot be proven from any necessry truths."

The issue again, is with trying to apply conceptual logic, to what, in reality, is ineffable. It may perhaps be more conducvie to attempt to introduce some practicality to all the logic.

We can start without any assumptions whatsoever, no "necessary truths" from which we try to prove anything.

Now, as you sit reading this (or after you have read this), take a moment to stop with the logical analysis, and just become aware of your surroundings.

Focus on your breath for a few moments, pay attention to it, and see if you can focus on 7 complete breath cycles (in and out).

As you breath in, become aware of the sensations associated with breathing in, maybe the feeling of the air flowing in through your nostrils or mouth, the rise of your chest or your diaphragm. Be aware of any other sense perceptions around you.

See if you can focus on 7 complete cycles of breath.

Stop reading and try this (if you wish of course)

I am not sure what the purpose of the exercise was. It was certainly relaxing experience.

roosh

Wicknight wrote: »

I think you are using that term differently to everyone else here.

For example, the experience of being drunk is a whole set of physical and mental impairments.

That is the experience, it what a person feels when drunk.

It is not actually necessary to be drunk to experience the feeling of being drunk, we merely associate it with being drunk because that is the most common method to trigger this experience.

You could say, though I'm not sure anyone here would agree it is the correct use of English, that the "experience of being drunk" means one must be drunk because if you are experiencing something you must classify it based on what triggered it.

So if you feel "drunk" but after not taking alcohol but say instead drugs, then it is incorrect to say you are experiencing drunk feeling because you aren't drunk. You are experiencing being high on drugs, even if those particular drugs produce an effect exactly like being drunk.

So when you say experience God you mean God must be involved in the process some how otherwise the experience is of something else.

That doesn't appear to be how others are using the term.

They are saying in essence that you experience being drunk, that is a common day classification for the symptoms, even if alcohol had nothing to do with it.

Equally you can say you experience God even if God has nothing to do with it.

You are right to an extent, and this is the issue of conceptualisation of experience, where the conceptualisation can use commonly understood terms, in a manner other than their common understanding.

As you say, if a person is on drugs, and they say that they are drunk, we might argue that they are not drunk, because they have not taken drink.

The issue however, is that the person may not have the range of vocabulary required, to express the experience accurately, or in a manner that is understood by others. There might be a certain term that he is not familiar with, that others are, and that others have an experiential understanding of.

If the other person is able to describe the symptoms, that the person on drugs is experiencing, with a relative degree of accuracy, and they apply a different label e.g. high, to the experience, then the person who is on drugs may, from then on, label the experience as high, because he is made aware of the common term that is used among peers to describe the experience.

If, after returning to his normal state of mind, he tries to explain this experience to someone else, who has not had the experience of being high, they may get an incorrect perception of what is being described. They may take the term literally and get an image of him being a certian height above see level. If they take the account literally, they may assume that people think they get elevated after taking the drug. However, this may not be the other persons belief at all, but the incorrect perception that arises from different understandings of the same word.

If the person explains it, using the old term "drunk", then the non-drug taker will likely leave with the incorrect perception of the experience, as they may relate it to their own experience of having been drunk. The two experiences would not be the same however.


This is where the issue of language plays a huge role, and in particular the context within which language originates, or is used in. Language can often take on different meanings when used in different contexts, and this is particularly true when we move between disciplines. Within various disciplines, be it management, science, IT, etc., a form of language is established, that allows for communication of concepts and things that are specific to that discipline. If you were to hear two people talking about a "balanced scorecard", you may be forgiven for thinking the two were talking about sport. However, if you saw that the two were somewhat overweight and were wearing suits, you might conclude that it is a business term, without fully understanding what it is, and develop an incorrect perception of it. If you do some homework however, you would end up with a better understanding of what the balanced scorecard means in a business context.

This phenomenon can go a long way to explaining how the term "scientific theory" causes some confusion among people who don't understand the contextual use of the word theory within science.

The same applies to the term God, when understood outside of a spiritual context.

Nemi

mangaroosh wrote: »

If the assumption upon which the reasoning is based is incorrect, then the probability, is very high, that the reasoning is incorrect.

Yes. But I'm taking the assumption to be necessary, as it is not possible to discover what is correct.

I'm not aware of any argument that could demonstrate whether other people are real or simply dreams of mine. If you produce one, then clearly I'll change my position. However, I suspect that argument may simply not exist.

Wicknight wrote: »

If (and it is a big IF) I established to standards I was happy with and external to my own recollection, that yes another man claimed to have a vision about me using details that are hard to explain, that yes I was miraculously cured of my blindness as soon as he touched me etc etc then I would be far less likely to dismiss my vision as a personal hallucination.

When I read this I thought of that magician the Great Randi, who offers a reward for anyone who can demonstrate paranormal powers. Is it fair to say that this is what you have in mind. (I think Jimitime has much the same kind of thing in mind). If you had some experience that you could reproduce, which the Great Randi could not explain, then you'd be more likely to accept the phenomenon as real.

Of course, there would still be disagreement on whether that paranormal phenomenon was evidence of a spirit world, or just evidence of something physical that we don't yet know. But at least there would be agreement that something needed to be accounted for.

roosh

Memnoch wrote: »

You're building a house of cards.

A person can take any number of pieces of unverified and incorrect information and use them to make an argument. That doesn't change the "truth" or "falsehood," of the original information.

When one person lies, it's still a lie even if a hundred other people also tell the same lie.

What you've described above is how someone has an experience, and then goes out and finds stories to support a particular interpretation of that experience, i.e. "god." The problem is that not ONE of those sources or stories can be shown to be true. There is no evidence to support them.

So what you're really talking about is conjuring 10 or 100 made up "facts," which on their own don't have any validity, and adding them up together to come up with another made up "fact." But the cumulation of all this stuff that's made up does not have any more vailidity than the made up stuff and is still a figment of the person's imagination.

Apologies, more time should probably have been spent on the clarification of the redundancy of conceptualisations, with regard to experience, or perhaps more detail on how language is established as a means of communicating our experiences, where technical language, "shop talk", "tech speak", fachsprache (in german), emerges in different disciplines, in order to communicate experiences, concepts or things that are particular to that discipline.


To give a very short example, imagine a couple go to a holiday destination in the mediterranean, where a bar-tender pours them a cocktail. They drink (experience) the cocktail for the first time, and like it, but don't know what it's called. The bar tender tells them it's called a "screwdriver". This establishes a language by which the drink can be referred to in future, to aid communication.


To re-use the Drugs example. Where a person takes a drug for the first time, they will have a new experience. They may try and communicate the nature of the experiene to someone else. They may not do a very good job of it, as they haven't learned "the lingo". The person may recognise what the person is feeling, and ask them if they are experiencing a number of symptoms. If the person on drugs says yes, then the other person might tell them that the experience is called "being high". This will establish "the lingo" for the "newbie"


A string theorist might, at some point, make a finding in their particular field, that does not tally with the description of string theory that they, or their colleagues are familiar with. Instead of a vibrating string they may discover what they can only describe as a birght white light, that shimmers "incredibly", like nothing they've ever seen before.

His/her colleagues may ask a number of questions, like, what they mean by white, is it a certain white light that they are familiar with. The discoverer might say "no", that it is not like any white light they had ever seen. They may ask for a description of the shimmering - "does it vibrate, like we imagined?". The answer might be "no, it's not vibrating, but shimmering and vibrating and rolling".

This description will not suffice as knowledge, for his/her colleagues. They will need to see it for themselves, or experience it for themselves. Once they have, they will offer their own description, which, together with the original description, might go towards forming a clearer description of the phenomenon. It will also depend on the level of agreement between the two string theorists. The more people that experience it [for themselves] the more descriptions that will be added, the more discussion that will ensue, and gradually a range of concepts will emerge that are used to describe the phenomenon.

These concepts may mean very little to anyone who has not epxerienced the phenomenon, or over time, people might develop their own [mis]understanding of what the concepts mean, and create their own preconceptions about what it must be like.

Of course, anyone who does not undertake the experiment, lacks a certain authority on the subject.

The key to the above, is the accurate description of a previous experience, and the subsequent learning of the language used to describe the experience. It also requires the investigation in to the concept itself, as well as supporting concepts.

When the theory explains the observed phenomena, it can generally be taken as accurate or verified, until such point as evidence to the contrary proves otherwise.

Memnoch wrote: »

BS. You've been playing semantics and trying to equate one with the other.

Not at all, this (false) perception most likely arose from misunderstanding the context within which both statements were made. They were made to different people, making different, if related, points. At no time was there any attempt to equate the too.

Any equating of the two has been in the mind of the beholder.

Memnoch wrote: »

But let's make it simple.

There is absolutely zero evidence to support such a thing as the "experience of god."

There is only the (false)perception that one has had such an experience.

The latter does not prove or support the former. No matter how much you may want it to. Since there are innumerable explanations for the so called perception that do not end with "god." And the evidence for all of these explanations is far greater than the conclusion that you want to reach with it.

There is ample evidence to support the possible existence of the "experience of God". The existence of 3 major monotheistic religions, for over 3000yrs (starting with Judaism), spiritual texts (not historical or scientific) referencing experiences with God, spiritual practices designed to create the conditions for an experience of God (not just praying), similarities between the concepts of these [one time] spiritual traditions and other spiritual traditions, countless testimonies claiming experience of God. The evidence of a conceptualisation of God for as long as there has been evidence of human civilization.

Of course, depending on the context of how one interprets this evidence, then the conclusion can be very different, just as if someone tried to interpret the evidence for the general theory of relativity, in the context of psychology or micro-biology, then the conclusions would be very different.

If spiritual principles were applied to any scientific theory, then the conclusions would be equally meaningless.


However, as for rational evidence for a supernatural creator deity, that is Omnipotent, Omnipresent, Omniscient, etc., then we need look no further than the universe itself, which on a relative level - the level you and I experience - exists as one being. This may fall down at the Quantum level, but may indeed resume at the M-theory level.

If M-theory turns out to be true, then the floating 'brane, will fit the criteria for:
a supernatural creator deity, that is Omnipotent, Omnipresent, Omniscient, etc.


Of course, you don't have to take my word, that what is referred to as God, exists, you could look into it yourself, from a spirtual perspective, as well as a scientific one. At least then the possibility of correctly interpreting spiritual concepts will exist.

roosh

Morbert wrote: »

I agree with some of this, (where we differ significantly are the bits in bold). But while the raw, undefined experience may be associated with different things (a computer simulation in one scenario, and actually falling in another) it is the same in both scenarios nonetheless. It is this 'decoupling' of the experience from things that is the key.

So let's modify one of the scenarios. Let's subtract the computer that is simulating falling so that one scenario consist of a man experiencing falling (whether or not he has defined/conceptualised it as such yet), who is actually falling, and the other consist of a man with an identical experience, who is neither falling nor attached to a computer. The latter certainly doesn't seem very physical, but it is still logically consistent if we strip away any assumptions about the physical/chemical brain, and the assumption that experiences emerge from interactions between an 'experiencer' and an 'experienced'. We have arrived at solipsism. Then, if we wanted to strip away solipsist assumptions, we could subtract the man/monk from the scenario, and have only the experience of falling/sensation of falling, a scenario which, again, is logically consistent. From there, it's a short hop to nihilism by admitting that the existence of this sensation must be assumed i.e. It must be accepted as an axiom, and cannot be proven from any necessry truths.

Morbert wrote: »

I am not sure what the purpose of the exercise was. It was certainly relaxing experience.

apologies, I meant to have the next bit typed out before now.

Firstly, did you manage to stay fully aware for the 7 cycles of breath? Presumably your mind wandered of it's own accord, without you necessarily "actively" thinking anything.

If you didn't notice, try becoming aware of your mind for a few moments, and try not to think of anything.


Back to the point of the exercise. We had logically arrived at nihilism, where experience had to be assumed to exist, and could not be [logically] proven from necessary truths. This exercise, should provide the proof of the existence of experience, without the need to [logically] prove it from necessary truths.

The experience is the necessary truth, from which other things, might perhaps be inferred.

gbee

I've spent so much time on these forums that I'm now convinced that God talks to ME!

I'm starting my own church and I'LL make up the rules.

My first pope, in honour of that sexy bearded man, will be a woman.

roosh

Nemi wrote: »

Yes. But I'm taking the assumption to be necessary, as it is not possible to discover what is correct.

The question tough is with regard to the nature of the assumption, that is, what is meant by Human Beings, as the term generally relates to the relative perception of peoples bodies, and doesn't usually incorporate the notion of humans existing at the quantum level.

So while it may not be possible to discover what is correct, what is incorrect may perhaps be revealed.

Nemi wrote: »

I'm not aware of any argument that could demonstrate whether other people are real or simply dreams of mine. If you produce one, then clearly I'll change my position. However, I suspect that argument may simply not exist.

There is an issue here, in that there is an assumption that the rest of the world is a dream of yours, where the possibility exists, that you yourself could be a "dream".

Indeed, spiritual investigation into the nature of the "self", is a manner in which assumptions about our "self" can be questioned, to reveal a clearer picture of who we are, and how we relate to the world. Such investigation, depending on the results it yields, will inevitbale change how we perceive the "external" world.

For example, if you take a few moments to become aware of your thoughts, basically just sitting and being aware of your mind. Try not to think of anything.

It is guaranteed that thoughts will arise in your mind, with you "actively" thinking them.

Nemi wrote: »

When I read this I thought of that magician the Great Randi, who offers a reward for anyone who can demonstrate paranormal powers. Is it fair to say that this is what you have in mind. (I think Jimitime has much the same kind of thing in mind). If you had some experience that you could reproduce, which the Great Randi could not explain, then you'd be more likely to accept the phenomenon as real.

Of course, there would still be disagreement on whether that paranormal phenomenon was evidence of a spirit world, or just evidence of something physical that we don't yet know. But at least there would be agreement that something needed to be accounted for.

Jimitimes example is somewhat different, in that it involves Paul following a premonition/dream (am I right in saying that? I didn't really follow that convo), where he meets a person from the dream, who cures his blindness.
-Is this a biblical story by the way?-

What I am referring to is different, in that it doesn't involve following clues, rather a very clear description of an experience, that some will no doubt attribute to "a trick of the mind".

Imagine that you are out for a night out, and after a few drinks you start to feel a very strange sensation that you have never experienced before, which continues for a while, and you have an experience that involves your entire mind and body. You are wondering what it is.

You tell your friend that something strange is going on, and you try to find the words to describe it but you can't. Then your frined describes what you are feeling, by asking "are you feeling this...", "are you felling that....", "is it more like this...", "does it sound like this...", with detailed descriptions, that aren't loaded with technical terms, and doesn't sound regurgitated, to which the answer of all the questions is yes.

If you're frined then says, someone must have spiked your drink with ecstasy, then you are liable to accept that explanation, particularly if you know that your friend has taken the drug before.

That is more a case of an independent testimony, verifying or explaining your own personal experience, with a degree of accuracy and understanding that suggests prior experience. If your frined then gives you "tips" on what to do, and tells you in advance what you might experience, and that description is also acccurate, you might justifiably draw the conclusion that he is correct. Of course he could be wrong.

You could, however, go out and acquire the drug for yourself, and see if the experience is the same or similar. This would re-inforce your conclusion that your friend was correct.

You might then use certain "slang" or descriptive concepts to refer to your experience in future, when communicating your knowledge of that experience to someone else.

roosh

gbee wrote: »

I've spent so much time on these forums that I'm now convinced that God talks to ME.

prove it!

Nemi

mangaroosh wrote: »

it may not be possible to discover what is correct, what is incorrect may perhaps be revealed.

Oh, that's fine. I'm completely open to an argument that demonstrates that people don't exist, or even one that demonstrates that I don't exist.

I just suspect that all that is possible is an argument that demonstrates the limits of philosophy. You'll be able to show that my non-existence is a possibility. But you won't be able to decide the matter definitively.

Which will leave me feeling that I'm right to just make an arbitrary assumption.

mangaroosh wrote: »

Jimitimes example is somewhat different, in that it involves Paul following a premonition/dream (am I right in saying that? I didn't really follow that convo), where he meets a person from the dream, who cures his blindness.

I'd agree that what I'm saying identical to that example. Its not like Paul can recreate all the circumstances of his blindness and cure. In that particular situation, you'd just have to evaluate the statements made by him and whatever people had witnessed his blindness and cure.

mangaroosh wrote: »

-Is this a biblical story by the way?-

I believe it is, but its being used here just as an illustrative example of the kind of experience someone might report, and the circumstances that would confirm an individual's belief that a vision actually happened.

roosh

Nemi wrote: »

Oh, that's fine. I'm completely open to an argument that demonstrates that people don't exist, or even one that demonstrates that I don't exist.

I just suspect that all that is possible is an argument that demonstrates the limits of philosophy. You'll be able to show that my non-existence is a possibility. But you won't be able to decide the matter definitively.

Which will leave me feeling that I'm right to just make an arbitrary assumption.

The question of a persons existence depends on what the person believes themselves to be, i.e. who/what they think you are, and what exactly they mean when they refer to "me".

It is not so much that you, or I, don't exist, rather what we believe ourselves to be, is not necessarily who/what we actually are. It depends on our "self". The thing is, we exist in a relative sense, that is, we continue to live in this relative world.

There is a Zen saying:
first there is a mountain, then there is no mountain, then there is.

it might could also be applied to the "self", in that first there is a "self", then there is no "self", then there is.

First we identify our "self" and have no question about who or what we are, then self investigation reveals that certain assumptions we have about ourself are incorrect, and are the result of our attachment to our habitual mind. Analysing us as individual humans, might reveal that we are actually part of a greater whole i.e. the parent/child being. Science has shown that our perception of ourselves, as the human body, is ultimately illusory, and does not exist as we see it.

Then of course we return to the realisation, that we continue to operate in the relative world.

This however is a conceptualisation, and there is anothrer Buddhist saying that says: don't confuse understanding for realisation, and don't mistake realisation for liberation.

Meaning that understanding the concept is different, from deepening the understanding through spiritual practice, and ultimately being liberated from our concepts about the world that often cause us to act habitually, and which can obscure reality in a material way. epistemology of perception

Nemi wrote: »

I'd agree that what I'm saying identical to that example. Its not like Paul can recreate all the circumstances of his blindness and cure. In that particular situation, you'd just have to evaluate the statements made by him and whatever people had witnessed his blindness and cure.I believe it is, but its being used here just as an illustrative example of the kind of experience someone might report, and the circumstances that would confirm an individual's belief that a vision actually happened.

The two examples are materially different, where Paul's experience is arguably more bizarre.

The difference lies in that Paul experiences a physical impairment, as a result of a premonition. He follows the direction of the premonition, and meets the stranger from the premonition, who cures his physical ailment.

The other does not involve a premonition of any kind, that is nothing that is predicted to happen in the future, or any "clues" which are to be followed. It also does not involve ayd physical impairments, or subesequent curing of any, and it also does not involve a second party, or third party observers.

The latter involves an experience, and a subsequent, independent and very accurate description of the experience, from a second party that is never met.

It also involves subsequent investigation, before adopting a conceptualisation of the experience.

The experience in the latter, involves a normal state of being, followed by an experience of clarity, followed by a return to the normal state.

As opposed to the normal state, being followed by a premonition, followed by blindness, followed by a "chance" encounter with a stranger, and being returned to either the normal state, or perhaps a state of greater clarity.

One is based on the Bible, the other is from "the Power of Now" by Eckhart Tolle.

Memnoch

mangaroosh wrote: »

The key to the above, is the accurate description of a previous experience, and the subsequent learning of the language used to describe the experience. It also requires the investigation in to the concept itself, as well as supporting concepts.

When the theory explains the observed phenomena, it can generally be taken as accurate or verified, until such point as evidence to the contrary proves otherwise.

Except accurate description is the last thing you seem to be striving for. It's more a case of convoluting the description so far as to obscure the truth and this add strength to that which you want to believe rather than that what is.

As for observed phenomena there are countless theories that explain it and these have far greater evidence than the "theory" of "god."

There is evidence that people suffer Hallucinations
There is evidence that people suffer delusions
There is evidence that people dream and that these dreams are not reality
There is evidence that people lie.
There is evidence that people lie to themselves to convince themselves of something that isn't true.

The above are known facts that have been verified scientifically time and time again. The 'experience of god,' which despite it's abundancy has not been verified a single time by any scientific observation.

There is ample evidence to support the possible existence of the "experience of God".

I'm going to take this apart piece by piece because it's important as this is the house of cards I'm talking about.

The existence of 3 major monotheistic religions, for over 3000yrs (starting with Judaism),

What about Hinduism? How many followers does it have? What about all the other religions throughout history? What about how most of these religions contradict each other.

Religions exist not because they are correct, but because they filled a void. People needed a way to understand their mortality and religion offered this explanation without a care for whether it was correct or not. Hence the whole nonsense with the sun being the centre of the universe etc. which IRONICALLY was based on the scientific(and not spiritual) knowledge of the time when it was created.

Powerful people realised the ability of religion to control the masses and bend them to their will and so they spread them and enforced them and converted people to them. Religion is a social construct, nothing more.

spiritual texts (not historical or scientific) referencing experiences with God, spiritual practices designed to create the conditions for an experience of God (not just praying), similarities between the concepts of these [one time] spiritual traditions and other spiritual traditions, countless testimonies claiming experience of God.

"Spiritual." Which means nothing as far as determining the truth of anything goes. Another concept invented to try and explain things we do not understand yet feel the need to do so. It seems for those that believe in the "spiritual," the veracity or lack thereof of the concept isn't really an issue, as long as it provides and explanation that they are comfortable with and that satisfies their craving to believe.

The evidence of a conceptualisation of God for as long as there has been evidence of human civilization.

Not a single piece of verifiable evidence as I understand it. Just stories and made up facts, interpreted rigidly by circular argument.

Here's the thing that I think is the difference between my standpoint and yours.

You've argued that everything is personal experience, even science is based on personal experience and therefore all beliefs are somehow equal.

Now, even if for a second I accept your position, that everything IS personal experience. I do not except that all personal experience is equal.

Because personal experience can be tainted by human fraility and weakness.

What you seem to fail to understand or ignore intentionally, is that the scientific method has been invented PRECISELY for this reason. To allow us to test the veracity or the "degree of truth," of one personal experience over another. Within the limitations of our knowledge and understanding, of course.

And it works. Which is why we are able to have this debate on the internet in the first place. Is it perfect? No. But it is the best tool that we have and has proven itself time and time again, within the limitations of our reality/existence whatever you want to call it.

Now is it possible that there are things beyond our understanding right now? Absolutely, not just possible but also probable. What irks me is when people claim to offer explanations for things we do not know for certain, as if we do, or they do. And until they can provide evidence to support their claims that withstand the test of the scientific method, I see NO REASON WHATSOEVER to lend more credence to their claims over any other piece of nonsense.

roosh

Memnoch wrote: »

Except accurate description is the last thing you seem to be striving for. It's more a case of convoluting the description so far as to obscure the truth and this add strength to that which you want to believe rather than that what is.

Aside from simply asserting this, is there specific examples that support this personal opinion. There is the possibility that the "argument" has not been fully understood. So, if any specific instances, where there has been an attempted obscuration of the truth, which can be cited, then perhaps we can "lend more credence to [this] claim, over any other piece of nonsense"

Memnoch wrote: »

As for observed phenomena there are countless theories that explain it and these have far greater evidence than the "theory" of "god."

There is evidence that people suffer Hallucinations
There is evidence that people suffer delusions
There is evidence that people dream and that these dreams are not reality
There is evidence that people lie.
There is evidence that people lie to themselves to convince themselves of something that isn't true.

The above are known facts that have been verified scientifically time and time again. The 'experience of god,' which despite it's abundancy has not been verified a single time by any scientific observation.

A whole raft of issues with the above, which have been addresses in other posts, but to re-iterate, the above list, while being completely valid, assumes that all experiences of God fit into the above categories. There is an assumption about the "content" of the experience of God.

A reading of Eckhart Tolle's, "the Power of Now", might offer a better insight into what an experience of God might be like.

These may, of course, explain some, if not a large number, of the claims that some people make about having experienced God, to assume that they explain them all however, is potentially incorrect - not least because it is nigh impossible to say whether it is true or not.

There is one potential other explanation, that is glaring by it's omission from the above, and that is meditation. Now, it has been shown that the practice of meditation materially affects the nerual pathways in the brain. That means, there is a corresponding level of brain activity associated with meditation. It might be tempting to suggest that this explains everything, that people who meditate believe they experience God, because their minds play tricks on them. The truth however, is that it is the meditation that results in brain activity that leads to the experience. This of course is the explanation based on our dualistic notions of cause and effect.

In reality, one does not give rise to the other, as the brain activity is [part] of the meditation. However, if we attempt to argue cause and effect, it is meditation that is the cause. Again, however, this potentially opens the argument of "tricks in the mind", but this is generally based on a mis-interpretation of what God is, due to a lack of contextual understanding - which will be addressed below, with the point on spirituality.

Memnoch wrote: »

What about Hinduism? How many followers does it have?

Hinduism apparently is apparently the third largest religion, behind Christianity and Islam, with approx. 1bn adherents. It also represents a useful starting point for clarifying the potential for misunderstanding what God is supposed to be, or indeed actually is.

wiki wrote:

Hinduism is a diverse system of thought with beliefs spanning monotheism, polytheism, panentheism, pantheism,monsim, atheism, agnosticism

The concept of God in Hinduism is complex and depends upon each particular tradition and philosophy. It is sometimes referred to as henotheistic (i.e., involving devotion to a single god while accepting the existence of others), but any such term is an overgeneralization.

wiki wrote:

Most Hindus believe that the spirit or soul — the true "self" of every person, called the ātman — is eternal.[68] According to the monistic/pantheistic theologies of Hinduism (such as Advaita Vedanta school), this Atman is ultimately indistinct from Brahman, the supreme spirit. Hence, these schools are called non-dualist.[69] The goal of life, according to the Advaita school, is to realize that one's ātman is identical to Brahman, the supreme soul.[70] The Upanishads state that whoever becomes fully aware of the ātman as the innermost core of one's own self realizes an identity with Brahman and thereby reaches moksha (liberation or freedom).[68][71]

Dualistic schools (see Dvaita and Bhakti) understand Brahman as a Supreme Being who possesses personality, and they worship him or her thus, as Vishnu, Brahma, Shiva, or Shakti, depending upon the sect. The ātman is dependent on God, while moksha depends on love towards God and on God's grace.[72] When God is viewed as the supreme personal being (rather than as the infinite principle), God is called Ishvara ("The Lord"),[73] Bhagavan ("The Auspicious One"[73]) or Parameshwara ("The Supreme Lord"[73]).[69] However interpretations of Ishvara vary, ranging from non-belief in Ishvara by followers of Mimamsakas, to identifying Brahman and Ishvara as one, as in Advaita.[69] In the majority of traditions of Vaishnavism he is Vishnu, God, and the text of Vaishnava scriptures identify this Being as Krishna, sometimes referred to as svayam bhagavan. There are also schools like the Samkhya which have atheistic leanings

The above makes it pretty clear, that Hinduism itself is, in effect a monothestic tradition [for the majority of its adherents], where Brahman is seen as the supreme being/creator/all-powerful being. There are of course other deities which are worshipped, but these are all seen as manifestations of Brahman, the supreme being - somewhat like the trinity, in christianity, or the 99 names of Allah. Effectively, these are just different conceptualisations of the same entity, thing, being, call it what you will.


It also makes it pretty clear, that what a person believes, is dependent on the individual, and indeed some choose not to believe in a supreme God at all. There may of course be various reasons, why people believe different things, but personal experience is a major factor in shaping our beliefs about the world. Hinduism will be addressed further under the point of spirituality below, as it is one of the worlds major spiritual traditions.

Memnoch wrote: »

What about all the other religions throughout history? What about how most of these religions contradict each other.

If we assume for a second, that the concept of God is, in fact, simply invented by man. This of course does not imply that this is correct, as it could have been through the realisation or experience of individuals that lead to the concept arising, and then subsequently being mis-interpreted by those who had not shared the experience.

This latter explanation may find some grounding in the theory of evolution, and perhaps what Dawkins referred to as meme theory, in that a through descent with modification, a person may have found themselves in the conditions that facilitated a "spiritual awakening" or realising the true nature of "the self", sought to teach this to others, through the means of conceptual language, where those others realised that it made a certain amount of sense, based on their own life experienec thus far, but without the exact experience, could not interpret it correctly, and so the conceptualisations spread and morphed as they spread (as memes).

But if we assume that the concept of God, was invented entirely by nearly every civilisation has existed, then we can perhaps look at it using a scientific analogy. Assume that every concept of God is a theory of God, that is, has no empirical evidence to support it, but according to the beliefs at the time, makes logical sense i.e. there must be a "supreme creator". Here we have multiple theories, without any evidence, where many of the theories apparently contradict each other.

Now, if we liken this to string theory, which is a theory that attempts to resolve the "contradiction" between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics - both of which are verified empirically, but are mutually exclusive.

We can see how there were 5 different and distinct, theories of string theory, not all of which could be correct. Along came Ed Witten and posited that perhaps all 5 theories were actually just 5 different ways of looking at the same thing. With this M-theory was formulated. Of course, still without any evidence to support the hypotheses (I think this is correct at the time of post).

:How then does one attempt to verify the claims?
:Empirically of course.
:How does one do this?
:By carrying out experiments.
:Any old experiments, for example biological experiments, or chemical experiments?
:No, by carrying out experiments relevant to that particular field.
:Spirituality is not empirically based
:Well, all spiritual knowledge arises from evidence gathered via sense experience.
:well whataya know, that is empirical!


The method, by which claims of truth in spirituality are investigated, is pre-dominantly meditation. Said another way, the method of empirical research in spirituality, that is, investigation into the nature of "the self", is pre-dominantly meditation.

Memnoch wrote: »

Religions exist not because they are correct, but because they filled a void. People needed a way to understand their mortality and religion offered this explanation without a care for whether it was correct or not. Hence the whole nonsense with the sun being the centre of the universe etc. which IRONICALLY was based on the scientific(and not spiritual) knowledge of the time when it was created.

Powerful people realised the ability of religion to control the masses and bend them to their will and so they spread them and enforced them and converted people to them. Religion is a social construct, nothing more.

At a blatant attempt at profundity, but equally to state some necessary truths:

Spirituality without empiricism is religion
Spirituality that denies science is not true spirituality
spirituality that does not question science, is not true spirituality

To paraphrase the Dalai Lama:
"If science proves some belief of Spirituality wrong, then Spirituality will have to change."

That is an interesting theory as to why religions exist, although it is presumably a subjective opinion, with a certain level of justification. Some people may follow religion because they had a void to be filled, or to understand their own mortality. To suggest that this is the only reason they exist is a massive generalisation. The reason being there is a spiritual tradition, often buried, in all of the major religions - if not all religions ever - which relies on empiricism. It doesn't simply rely on peole believing a theory, it involves personal investigation of that theory.

There have been people who have followed these traditions, and devoted their entire lives to spiritual practice - just as many scientists devote their entire career to the search for truth - who have attained various degrees of realisation. Some more so than others. Many have no doubt sought to spread the knowledge that they acquired so that others may do the same. This may have resonated with people, who formed beliefs based on what they had heard. Some may have simply accepted what they heard without ever investigating it for themselves - as many people accept scientific facts without verifying it for themselves.

Others may have practiced and attained a degree of realisation, not to the level of the master. They may have voiced their own beliefs according to their own experience. This process, and the varying degree of realisation of different "masters", the geographical location of the "masters" and therefore the people they could reach, would lead to different conceptualisations of the practices and the knowledge, This may have resonated with people, who formed beliefs based on what they had heard. Some may have simply accepted what they heard without ever investigating it for themselves, they may have discussed their beliefs with others, which would have spawned many different beliefs, and some may have investigated the claims for themselves, and the process continues for over 3000yrs, perhaps longer.

OF course, there may have been those who were not spiritually minded at all, but rather politically minded, who were interested in power. They may have seen how people followed these spiritual leaders, and in some cases grown envious, and sought to execute these leaders. Others may have recognised the potential for controlling people on the basis of their religion, and so adopted it as the state religion, thereby setting up institutions to control the spiritual practices. Depending on the motivations and the realisations of those who assumed control of the spiritual traditions, the fate of the different traditions would have been very different. Where control and greed was the motivation, it may have lead to the highest positions of those institutions being filled with cronies, who sought to manipulate the people and extort money from them.

As spiritual traditions, and indeed life, were in the hands of individuals, just as politics, society and economics are not themselves absolutes, but made up entirely of "individuals", they would have been subject to the prevailing conditions of the time, political, social, economic etc.

Just as everything is a social contsruct, economics, politics, science, that is, they are "invented" and used by "man", so too is spirituality a social construct. It is however, like many other social constructs, empirically based, just as life is empirically based.

Memnoch wrote: »

"Spiritual." Which means nothing as far as determining the truth of anything goes. Another concept invented to try and explain things we do not understand yet feel the need to do so. It seems for those that believe in the "spiritual," the veracity or lack thereof of the concept isn't really an issue, as long as it provides and explanation that they are comfortable with and that satisfies their craving to believe.

As is abundantly clear, the concept or term "spirituality" lends itself quite easily to mis-interpretation, but then so too perhaps, would the term science, if no one bothered to try to understand it. This confusion, quite probably lies, among other things, in the word spirituality itself. It's closeness to the word spiritualism can often lead to the two being mixed up. It is more than likely the root of the word, "spirit", which is the real cause.

The reason being, that people tend to have pre-conceptions about what the word means, in fact, it has almost become synonymous with the word Ghost, or perhaps soul. This is perhaps understandable, as the term "spirit" is also synonymous with the term "the self" (Ātman, in Hinduism). The term "self", is also synonymous with terms such as "myself", "me", "I", "mine", "my", all terms which we use to refer to our "self".

It is the nature of the "self", which ultimately is the reason for the confusion, in that it is quite illusive. It is the [apparently] non-physical nature of this "self", that has lead to conceptualisations of a "cosmic energy" or "soul" which inhabits the body, and travels on after our earthly demise. Of course, it is our natural tendency is to physicalise concepts, in accordance with our experience of the "external world", that leads to the physicalisation of this [apparently] non-physical "self", and ultimately the idea of some form of meta-physical (or paranormal) "soul", which can possibly fly around the place, or haunt old buildings. It is also this physicalisation of something which is [apparently] non-physical, which lead to the need to create a "cosmic home" or realm for this "soul" when it came time to leave the physical world. This of course, is to entirely misunderstand what "the self" actually is, and is probably the result of people attempting to interpret spiritual concepts, without spiritual practice, or perhaps, misinterpreting their experiences during spiritual practice.


Spirituality is the empirical study of the nature of this "self" and the nature of the mind, as opposed to a belief in ghosts and paranormal activity. Hopefully this is clarified now. Of course, there may be many theories and approaches to studying the nature of "the self" and the mind, neuro-biology and psychology being among them. Of course, everyone (we may choose to presume) has one of these "self's" for themselves, so it is possible to investigate personally, on some level at least. Indeed, many insights into the nature of mind, or claims made by such spiritual traditions as Buddhism, are gradually being researched by contemporary science, and many of these claims are being supported, by scientific research, not just psychological but neuro-biological - Buddhism and Science. This relates to Hinduism also, as there is a large overlap between the practices of both, if not the concepts. So, as far as spirituality meaning "nothing as far as determining the truth of anything goes", or lacking veracity, modern scientific research would tend to diagreee.


Now, that hopefully, any misunderstanding as to what spirituality actually is, it's [pre-supposed] lack of veracity clarified, it is in this context - the investigation of "the self" - that the concept of God must be interpreted. If not must, then it must, at least, be given serious consideration.

A core principle of spirituality is, that how we perceive our "self" and the "external" world, is fundamentally incorrect, that is, we have a fundamental misperception of the nature our "self" is, and the nature of phenomena around us. Therefore, we have a fundamental misperception of reality.

Now, in case the underlying idea is not clear, and it presumably isn't, it might be useful to re-state a number of the points related to Hinduism above, that pertain directly to this idea of a misperception of "the self".

the true "self" - as opposed to our misperception of the "self" - of every person, called the ātman — is eternal.[68]

this Atman is ultimately indistinct from Brahman, the supreme spirit (A.K.A. God).

one's ātman is identical to Brahman, the supreme soul (A.K.A. God).[70]
whoever becomes fully aware of the ātman as the innermost core of one's own self realizes an identity with Brahman and thereby reaches moksha (liberation or freedom).

To quote the upanishadsThe Upanishads:
Mundaka Upanishad 2
"All this is, verily, Brahman. This self is Brahman. This same self has four quarters."

Narashimha Upanishad 7:3
"Everything is God"

The basic idea, in case it is not clear, is that this supernatural, Omni-propertied being, that created this relative universe, is actually the universe itself, of which we are a part. It is due to our fundamental misperception of ourselves that we cannot see this, as we view our "self" as being separate from everything else, when logical invetigation of our relative world highlights that everything is just one being, interconnected, not-separate.

This may fall down at the sub-atomic level, but M-theory suggests that it may indeed pick up at the ultimate Quantum Level. Even if M-theory is not verified, it can be used as an explanatory tool to hopefully dispel the idea of God as a bearded old man sitting on a cloud, which is a perception that comes IRONICALLY from our own misperception of ourselves. A supernatural creator deity is not floating around somewhere "out there", rather what we are is part of it!

Peter Russel might explain it better (I know, Peter Who??). Now if anyone goes onto watch this entire vid, then be warned that it is largely pseudo-science, it is the spiritual content which is being referenced - or rather just this clip. Equally, this does not constitute a synopsis of any of the spiritual traditions, it is merely to for explanatory purposes here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ap-JvozEkC4

Memnoch wrote: »

Not a single piece of verifiable evidence as I understand it. Just stories and made up facts, interpreted rigidly by circular argument.

Any of the claims made in the discipline of spirituality are open to investigation. Empiricism is "king" in true spirituality also, even if not everyone who claims to be spiritual, follows that "rule". Just as, not everyone who quotes a scientific fact, has actually carried out the experiment themselves.

Spirituality eschews logic or a priori reasoning in favour of empirical research - much like science.

Memnoch wrote: »

Here's the thing that I think is the difference between my standpoint and yours.

You've argued that everything is personal experience, even science is based on personal experience and therefore all beliefs are somehow equal.

Now, even if for a second I accept your position, that everything IS personal experience.

There is no need to accept it, it is there to be challenged, but do so, not on the basis of logic - althought that too is welcome - but on the basis of empirical research.

Memnoch wrote: »

I do not except that all personal experience is equal.

Because personal experience can be tainted by human fraility and weakness.

The idea of equality of all personal experience is a misnomer, as personal experience is non-conceptual and is therefore not subject to conceptual ideas such as equality.

If however, conceptualisation of personal experience is what is meant, and it seems clear it must be, then there may be a clear case for arguing over equality. There could of course be a sub-sequent counter argument, but there is no need, for the point is agreed in principle.

There is inequality among [conceptualisations] of personal experience, but that inequality arises, not necessarily because of the superiority of one "individual" over another, but rather based on the field of expertise within which the conceptualisation is expressed. The basis for judging this inequality can be done so on the level of training of the individuals, in the relevant field, where someone who has been working in the field of science "all their lives" would have authority over someone with no scientific background - on issues of science. Equally, someone with a stronger background in spritituality has more authority over spiritual matters. Of course there may be some overlap between the two fields, where both attempt to make claims that affect the other e.g. claims about reality. In this instance, the nature of the claim may dictate who has authourity - although, there can be no authourity over truth. Truth is the authority.

Memnoch wrote: »

What you seem to fail to understand or ignore intentionally, is that the scientific method has been invented PRECISELY for this reason. To allow us to test the veracity or the "degree of truth," of one personal experience over another. Within the limitations of our knowledge and understanding, of course.

And it works. Which is why we are able to have this debate on the internet in the first place. Is it perfect? No. But it is the best tool that we have and has proven itself time and time again, within the limitations of our reality/existence whatever you want to call it.

There will be no disagreement here, on the overarching success of scientific enquiry, as mentioned, true spirituality embraces science, as well as questions it - in true scientific manner.

There is also no argument over the imperfections of science, and the unavoidable limitations placed upon it, while operating within the constraints of our relaity/existence. In fact, one of the limitations of science, within which the discipline of spirituality operates, and that is with regard to the existence and the nature of the self.

Memnoch wrote: »

Now is it possible that there are things beyond our understanding right now? Absolutely, not just possible but also probable. What irks me is when people claim to offer explanations for things we do not know for certain, as if we do, or they do. And until they can provide evidence to support their claims that withstand the test of the scientific method, I see NO REASON WHATSOEVER to lend more credence to their claims over any other piece of nonsense.

Again, it is with regard to one of these "things", which we do not fully understand, that spirituality operates. That "thing" is the self, something which lies, strangely, outside the auspices of the scientific method.

Spirituality does not offer any explanations, for things we do not know for certain, although some peole might - just as some scientists might - what it offers is a clearly defined approach to empirical investigation, within the field it operates. All claims are verifiable, and are starting to withstand the test of the scientific method (see links above), and have already stood the test of time.

Now, for any claims pertaining to the spiritual concept of God, that display a clear lack of understanding for the discipline of spirituality or spiritual science, then THERE IS NO REASON to lend more credence to their claims, over any other piece of nonsense.




I don't know why, but I have the urge write, "GOOD DAY SIR", after that.

roosh

sonicthebadger* wrote: »

If Synesthesia exists then experiences of a thing do not give an indication of the reality of that thing. We cannot rely on our senses. We must look at many different sources to uncover the cause of the experience. Would that not be so?

Synesthesia isn't a "thing", it is the name given to a condition/experience. So the experience, or condition, of it exists, or rather the label Synesthesia is given to the condition.

This is the issue of concpetualisation, as there appears to be a human tendency to physicalise conceptions, and to take concepts to be "things" in themselves.

If we think in terms of the physical world, we can ask, can the experience of what is referred to as a cup, exist without a cup?