Page 6 of 33 FirstFirst 1234567891011121316 ... LastLast
Results 66 to 78 of 425
  1. #66
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Posts
    8,225
    Im surprised nobody has posted a die antwoord video......

    odd
    YOU SHALL REAP WHAT YOU HAVE _______ SOWN

  2. #67
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Iraq
    Posts
    1,131
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian GC View Post
    Beliefs are formed by experiences. Not all experiences are provable. If an experience is not provable should it be considered no experience at all and nothing should be learned from it?

    I have a question for you: If you were alone in the dessert, fully awake, mentally sharp and aware and a metallic disk landed in front of you and a typically depicted grey alien walk out of the vehicle, approached you, stood in front of you, looked you in the eye, allowed you to touch it, you felt its body warmth and observed the complexity of its eyes and details of its skin - it gets back it its disk vehicle and achieved mach 10 in a matter of seconds, would you consider that experience to be knowledge of non-human contact or a belief? Remember, you used four of your five senses to validate your experience yet they did not leave you with a ray gun to take to your local scientist.

    Using your assertion, if you witness your wife having an affair, yet you do not take photos of the act, you do not have knowledge of anything. So my follow-on question is - how does a photo make something true? Can it not be true with or without the photo...or the ray gun?
    man you are great

  3. #68
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    432
    Evidence can never be true or false - only strong or weak.

    By the description you give of the alien event - you would have good reason to believe that you were visited by an alien.

    This is because we have a catalogue of experiences of intelligent life and technologies - the life form would obviously be about as intelligent as the average human, at least, and the technology is better than that produced by any other known animal of earth and therefore the life must be from another planet. We know what are planets and solar systems and we therefore know how to identify same out there in other places in the universe and so you would have come across good evidence for the existence of aliens.

    The point about the experience being multi-sensory is important - it increases the likelihood that the event was not an hallucination.

    But - no human has any idea of what a catalogue of god experiences looks like and therefore no experience at all could ever be identified as a god experience.

  4. #69
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Iraq
    Posts
    1,131
    Quote Originally Posted by thermophysics View Post
    Evidence can never be true or false - only strong or weak.

    By the description you give of the alien event - you would have good reason to believe that you were visited by an alien.

    This is because we have a catalogue of experiences of intelligent life and technologies - the life form would obviously be about as intelligent as the average human, at least, and the technology is better than that produced by any other known animal of earth and therefore the life must be from another planet. We know what are planets and solar systems and we therefore know how to identify same out there in other places in the universe and so you would have come across good evidence for the existence of aliens.

    The point about the experience being multi-sensory is important - it increases the likelihood that the event was not an hallucination.

    But - no human has any idea of what a catalogue of god experiences looks like and therefore no experience at all could ever be identified as a god experience.
    lol

  5. #70
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Long Beach, CA
    Posts
    3,730
    Quote Originally Posted by thermophysics View Post
    Evidence can never be true or false - only strong or weak.

    By the description you give of the alien event - you would have good reason to believe that you were visited by an alien.

    This is because we have a catalogue of experiences of intelligent life and technologies - the life form would obviously be about as intelligent as the average human, at least, and the technology is better than that produced by any other known animal of earth and therefore the life must be from another planet. We know what are planets and solar systems and we therefore know how to identify same out there in other places in the universe and so you would have come across good evidence for the existence of aliens.

    The point about the experience being multi-sensory is important - it increases the likelihood that the event was not an hallucination.

    But - no human has any idea of what a catalogue of god experiences looks like and therefore no experience at all could ever be identified as a god experience.
    That is why I asked the definition of what God is. It is different things to different people. You seem to want to prove or disprove it is a Man in the clouds, when others do not define it/Him that way. The Christians and Muslims cannot take license to define what God is. They can only speak for themselves and you are making a counter argument for a narrow depiction of God.

  6. #71
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    432
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian GC View Post
    That is why I asked the definition of what God is. It is different things to different people. You seem to want to prove or disprove it is a Man in the clouds, when others do not define it/Him that way. The Christians and Muslims cannot take license to define what God is. They can only speak for themselves and you are making a counter argument for a narrow depiction of God.
    Any attempted depiction of a god would necessarily be idolatrous and even blasphemous - certainly all talk of gods can only ever be impious.

    Any definition of what is god would be merely a definition - without any connection to reality.

    Give me a definition of a dragon or a Unicorn. Where will that get us regarding how the universe actually is?

    Here is what one of the greatest Sceptical commentators of Academic Philosophy says about the matter and he dates from around the second century AD.

    From Book 3 of the "Outlines of Scepticism"
    Writen by Sextus Empiricus before approximately 210AD

    Since the majority have asserted that god is a most active cause, let us first consider god, remarking by way of preface that, following ordinary life without opinions, we say that there are gods and we are pious towards the gods and say that they are provident: it is against the rashness of the Dogmatists that we make the following points.

    We ought to form a conception of the substance of the things we conceive, e.g. whether they are bodies or incorporeal. Also of their form - no-one could conceive of a horse unless he had previously learned the form of a horse. Further, what is conceived of ought to be conceived of somewhere.

    Now, since some of the Dogmatists say that god is a body, others that he is incorporeal, some that he is anthropomorphic, others not, some in space, others not - and of those who say that he is in space, some say that he is within the universe, others that he is outside it - how shall we be able to acquire a conception of god if we possess neither an agreed substance for him nor a form nor a place in which he is? Let them first agree and form a consensus that god is of such-and-such a kind; and only then, having given us an outline account, let them require us to form a concept of god. As long as they remain in undecidable dispute, we have no agreement from them as to what we should think.

    But, they say, conceive of something indestructible and blessed, and hold that to be god. This is silly: just as, if you do not know Dio, you cannot think of his attributes as attributes of Dio, so, since we do not know the substance of god, we shall not be able to learn and to conceive of his attributes.

    Moreover, let them tell us what it is to be blessed - whether it is to act in accordance with virtue and to provide for the things subordinated to you, or rather to be inactive and take no trouble to yourself and cause none to others. They have had an undecidable dispute about this too, thus making blessedness - and therefore god - incon*ceivable by us.

    Even granting that god is indeed conceivable, it is necessary to suspend judgement about whether gods exist or not, so far as the Dogmatists are concerned. For it is not clear that gods exist: if the gods made an impression on us in themselves, the Dogmatists would be in agreement as to what they are and of what form and where; but the undecidable dispute has made it seem to us that the gods are unclear and in need of proof.

    Now anyone who tries to prove that there are gods, does so either by way of something clear or else by way of something unclear. Certainly not by way of something clear; for if what proves that there are gods were clear, then since what is proved is thought of in relation to what proves and is therefore also apprehended together with it, as we have established, it will also be clear that there are gods, this being apprehended together with what proves it, which, itself is clear. But it is not clear, as we have suggested; therefore it is not proved by way of something clear.

    Nor yet by way of something unclear. For the unclear item which is to prove that there are gods is in need of proof: if it is said to be proved by way of something clear, it will no longer be unclear but clear. Therefore the unclear item which is to prove that there are gods is not proved by way of something clear. Nor yet by way of something unclear: anyone who says this will fall into an infinite regress, since we shall always demand a proof of the unclear item brought forward to prove the point at issue.

    The existence of gods, therefore, cannot be proved from anything else.

    But if it is neither clear in itself nor proved by something else, then it will be inapprehensible whether or not there are gods. Again, there is this to be said. Anyone who says that there are gods says either that they provide for the things in the universe or that they do not - and that if they provide, then either for all things or for some. But if they provided for all things, there would be nothing bad and evil in the universe; but they say that everything is full of evil. Therefore the gods will not be said to provide for everything.

    But if they provide for some things, why do they provide for these and not for those? Either they both want to and can provide for all, or they want to but cannot, or they can but do not want to, or they neither want to nor can. If they both wanted to and could, then they would provide for all; but they do not provide for all, for the reason I have just given; therefore it is not the case that they both want to and can provide for all. If they want to but cannot, they are weaker than the cause in virtue of which they cannot provide for the things for which they do not provide; but it is contrary to the concept of god that a god should be weaker than anything. If they can provide for all but do not want to, they will be thought to be malign. If they neither want to nor can, they are both malign and weak - and only the impious would say this about the gods.

    The gods, therefore, do not provide for the things in the universe. But if they have providence for nothing and have no function and no effect, we will not be able to say how it is apprehended that there are gods, since it is neither apparent in itself nor apprehended by way of any effects. For this reason too, then, it is inapprehensible whether there are gods.

    From this we deduce that those who firmly state that there are gods are no doubt bound to be impious: if they say that the gods provide for everything, they will say that they are a cause of evil; and if they say that they provide for some things or even for none at all, they will be bound to say either that the gods are malign or that they are weak - and anyone who says this is clearly impious.

  7. #72
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Long Beach, CA
    Posts
    3,730
    Quote Originally Posted by thermophysics View Post
    Any definition of what is god would be merely a definition - without any connection to reality.

    Give me a definition of a dragon or a Unicorn. Where will that get us regarding how the universe actually is?
    It can assumed we have a limited mental capacity and our ability to comprehend these principles can only go so far. Does that mean we should make no attempt to comprehend these principles?

    Understanding what a unicorn or dragon is will not help you understand the origin of our souls or the universe. I don't get the connection.

    We study, meditate and pray to understand God better, whatever God is. Not defining God properly does not make our attempts worthless.

  8. #73
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Long Beach, CA
    Posts
    3,730
    Quote Originally Posted by thermophysics View Post
    ...you would have come across good evidence for the existence of aliens.
    But my question was, after an experience like that would you have knowledge of having contact with other worldly being?

  9. #74
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    432
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian GC View Post
    It can assumed we have a limited mental capacity and our ability to comprehend these principles can only go so far. Does that mean we should make no attempt to comprehend these principles?

    Understanding what a unicorn or dragon is will not help you understand the origin of our souls or the universe. I don't get the connection.

    We study, meditate and pray to understand God better, whatever God is. Not defining God properly does not make our attempts worthless.
    Our attempts are utterly worthless in the epistemic sense - that is if we want to attain knowledge of the gods or a god.

    If any such attempts bring peace, happiness, health and a sense of purpose etc etc then, well, cool, but none of that gets us anywhere close to the epistemic question of whether there actually is a god and if so can anything of it be known.

    The reason why our attempts are utterly useless is that nothing about any god is known to be logically necessary.

    It is logically necessary that tomorrow it either will rain or it will not rain. It has to be one or the other.

    But since there are no logical necessities regarding gods - except of the sorts such as occurs in the ontological argument for gods existence, where it is in effect argued that "If god exists then he necessarily exists", the ultimate question here is still left untouched - whether in fact god exists.

    Since however or whatever any god happens to be would have to be a posteriori and synthetic and since whatever is necessary of any god would have also to be be discovered a posteriori, as it was that water necessarily being H2O had to be discovered a posteriori being inaccessible by pure reason, it is a necessary truth that reason is utterly incapable of getting at any truth whatever about any god.

    Kant explains this in his Critique of Pure Reason - he says that god cannot be approached by any means other than faith - nothing can be got at regarding any god by reason or experience.

    http://www.amazon.co.uk/Critique-Rea...dp/0140447474/

  10. #75
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    432
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian GC View Post
    But my question was, after an experience like that would you have knowledge of having contact with other worldly being?
    Yes, you could claim to have knowledge, because your beliefs were triangulated by multiple senses and certainly by the tracks left behind in the sand and so on.

    The thing to remember is that all knowledge is fallible - there is no such thing as certain knowledge.

    A mere private experience is, however, not knowledge, because a private experience is not even a belief yet.

  11. #76
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Long Beach, CA
    Posts
    3,730
    Quote Originally Posted by thermophysics View Post
    Yes, you could claim to have knowledge, because your beliefs were triangulated by multiple senses and certainly by the tracks left behind in the sand and so on.

    The thing to remember is that all knowledge is fallible - there is no such thing as certain knowledge.

    A mere private experience is, however, not knowledge, because a private experience is not even a belief yet.
    If you can claim to have knowledge of alien contact after an experience like that then why can't a person have knowledge of God after a near death experience? Why would more senses make something more valid than an out-of-body experience? Those judging these things, such as yourself, have little experience with OBE's. How can you say it is less valid than our five (or six) senses?

    We are back to whether the photo makes something true or not. Does it really? Our scientific institutions with our limited brains are not the last word in what is true or not.

  12. #77
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    432
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian GC View Post
    If you can claim to have knowledge of alien contact after an experience like that then why can't a person have knowledge of God after a near death experience? Why would more senses make something more valid than an out-of-body experience? Those judging these things, such as yourself, have little experience with OBE's. How can you say it is less valid than our five (or six) senses?

    We are back to whether the photo makes something true or not. Does it really? Our scientific institutions with our limited brains are not the last word in what is true or not.
    A near death experience is just that - it is an experience - and experience cannot also be a belief.

    The two are not at all the same. Private experiences are not something that can be known. Ryle and Wiitgenstein explained this in Ryles "Concept of Mind" and Wittgenstein's "Philosophical Investigations".

    It makes sense to say I saw a rose - I observed a rose.

    It makes no sense to say I saw my experience - I observed my experience of seeing the rose.

    http://youtu.be/y02UlkYjSi0

  13. #78
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    432
    What's more is no one could possibly know if any near death experience happened to also be a god experience - because no one possesses a catalogue of god experiences for reference - hence knowledge of god experiences is impossible.

Page 6 of 33 FirstFirst 1234567891011121316 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Comfortech Show Promo Image

Related Forums

Plumbing Talks | Contractor Magazine
Forums | Electrical Construction & Maintenance (EC&M) Magazine
Comfortech365 Virtual Event