The Uselessness Of Personal Revelation

[jo1952]

?

I'm asking what your criterion for testing are, brother. What are they?

You are asking for criterion for testing something that is spiritual. In order to test something spiritual, the very first step a person needs to take is to let go of the world or they will never experience the spiritual.

Whether you like it or not, this is just how it works. Man did not create our world or the rules that govern the existence of our world. While you are in the flesh, there is simply no other way. Now, you CAN get to a point in studying specific types of science where you will come to realize that our physcial reality is being controlled by an unseen reality. This might be the ticket for you to be able to let go of the world and take a spiritual step in faith.

jo

[mfbukowski]

Those of us who have had the experience don't question what caused it. Since you didn't have the experience how can you question it?

The only answer to what caused an experience is another experience. It is an infinite regress. It is the whole Humean causality problem all over again- and all "reality" is, is my experience or someone else's experience, commonly shared.

[elguanteloko]

You are asking for criterion for testing something that is spiritual. In order to test something spiritual, the very first step a person needs to take is to let go of the world or they will never experience the spiritual.

Whether you like it or not, this is just how it works. Man did not create our world or the rules that govern the existence of our world. While you are in the flesh, there is simply no other way. Now, you CAN get to a point in studying specific types of science where you will come to realize that our physcial reality is being controlled by an unseen reality. This might be the ticket for you to be able to let go of the world and take a spiritual step in faith.

jo

A lot of assertions and few justifications. For the 20th time, I'm not questioning spiritual experiences but what causes them and how you know what the cause is. Is that distinction not clear still, Jo?

[elguanteloko]

The only answer to what caused an experience is another experience. It is an infinite regress. It is the whole Humean causality problem all over again- and all "reality" is, is my experience or someone else's experience, commonly shared.

You have event X and you try to explain it. You can't go back in time so the cause will never be an experience for you. All you can do is try and test similar experiences to X and see what necessary and sufficient conditions need to be present for the similar experiences to arise. You are going in a totally different way here. Science and falsification don't really need the concept of cause since we don't use induction but deduction in science and explanations are always tentative. I say "cause" for practical purposes. Really, mf, nothing controversial here.

[jo1952]

.....O...K......

I don't believe in those things.

I was (still am officially, though) a Mormon. I had a "testimony" and saw many "miracles"... IRRELEVANT. I'm not asking for experiences nor am I questioning them but the CAUSES of those experiences.

I took them and I took them many many many times. I actually was never as involved in the Church and never studied as much about it than right when my testimony was falling.

LOL yeah, sure.

Do you understand I'm questioning what caused the experience and not the experience of a miracle, Jo?

Yes, I do understand you are questioning the cause. With your mindset and point of view, you are the one who is preventing receiving the answers to your own questions. Perhaps this period of your life in your mortal body is meant to teach you something you need to learn; most likely concerning faith. Even though you are fighting against it, I have no doubt that you are learning regardless of the kicking and screaming you are doing. Until you have gotten through the process, you will not know what it is you have learned. At some point, however, you will be able to see it clearly; if not in this estate, then in the next.

jo

[mfbukowski]

Yes, I do understand you are questioning the cause. With your mindset and point of view, you are the one who is preventing receiving the answers to your own questions. Perhaps this period of your life in your mortal body is meant to teach you something you need to learn; most likely concerning faith. Even though you are fighting against it, I have no doubt that you are learning regardless of the kicking and screaming you are doing. Until you have gotten through the process, you will not know what it is you have learned. At some point, however, you will be able to see it clearly; if not in this estate, then in the next.

jo

What are the "necessary and sufficient reasons" for having meaning in your life; for having a reason to get out of bed in the morning?

What are the "necessary and sufficient reasons" for falling in love?

For being Happy?

For being fulfilled in your life?

How does one define the "cause" of those experiences?

This is going no where.

[elguanteloko]

Yes, I do understand you are questioning the cause. With your mindset and point of view, you are the one who is preventing receiving the answers to your own questions. Perhaps this period of your life in your mortal body is meant to teach you something you need to learn; most likely concerning faith. Even though you are fighting against it, I have no doubt that you are learning regardless of the kicking and screaming you are doing. Until you have gotten through the process, you will not know what it is you have learned. At some point, however, you will be able to see it clearly; if not in this estate, then in the next.

jo

I'm asking what YOUR standard or criteria for figuring out what the cause is.

[elguanteloko]

What are the "necessary and sufficient reasons" for having meaning in your life; for having a reason to get out of bed in the morning?

What are the "necessary and sufficient reasons" for falling in love?

For being Happy?

For being fulfilled in your life?

How does one define the "cause" of those experiences?

This is going no where.

Can you explain to me what the relevance of those questions is? I'm not seeing it. We are talking about actual stuff that is claimed to be out there in the universe (God). Really nothing more than asking "How do you know there is a gnome in your back yard right now?" when someone claims a gnome is actually in their back yard. What causes epilepsy? What causes cancer? etc, are different questions than "what is happiness" and "what is the cause of fulfillment in life?" etc. Do you realize philosophy is different than science? We are speaking of actual beings that are claimed to produced certain effects in people.

MF, you are going to the ludicrous side already. Unless you are ready to throw all of science out the window I think you get my point. Believers don't only claim to have the idea of a God but claim that such an idea actually represents something outside of themselves about existence. All I'm asking is how they know that. I know what causes me to be happy and fulfilled but that says very little about this subject.

[mfbukowski]

Can you explain to me what the relevance of those questions is? I'm not seeing it. We are talking about actual stuff that is claimed to be out there in the universe (God). Really nothing more than asking "How do you know there is a gnome in your back yard right now?" when someone claims a gnome is actually in their back yard. What causes epilepsy? What causes cancer? etc, are different questions than "what is happiness" and "what is the cause of fulfillment in life?" etc. Do you realize philosophy is different than science? We are speaking of actual beings that are claimed to produced certain effects in people.

MF, you are going to the ludicrous side already. Unless you are ready to throw all of science out the window I think you get my point. Believers don't only claim to have the idea of a God but claim that such an idea actually represents something outside of themselves about existence. All I'm asking is how they know that. I know what causes me to be happy and fulfilled but that says very little about this subject.

You just will never get it I guess- there IS "no actual stuff out there" that IS NOT EXPERIENCE ITSELF.

Science is objective experience we can all agree on. When the water boils, I put in the thermometer, and it reads 212 degrees.

You can do that I can do that, some guy in China or Greenland can do that with the same results. We call THAT KIND of experience "objective", because we can all verify it. That is what science does. It is linguistic and cultural truth-

On the other hand we have experience which is "subjective"- the way I see yellow, what is important to me, how I make decisions about who to marry, what makes my life worth living.

The way I taste salt- the way yellow looks to me.

Those are subjective- no one will ever understand the way I see these thing. BUT THAT IS HOW I EXPERIENCE THE WORLD- subjectively. EVERYTHING is subjective at first until you agree with me that you see it the same way I do- but when you verify that, you have made it "objective" SIMPLY BECAUSE WE HAVE AGREED on a common experience.

But you will never experience what makes ME happy, what it is about my wife that makes me love her, or what fulfills my life, OR how I experience God.

Those are private, subjective experiences- YET THOSE THINGS ARE VERY REAL! In fact they are what makes my life worth living-

Scientific facts do not make your life worth living. It's interesting. It's intriguing maybe it's fun- maybe its fulfilling, but not for everyone. DOING science may be fun for you, but facts are not "fun"- they are facts.

There is nothing "out there" but shared experience. That's the only way we can know what's "out there"- and it isn't even really "out there"

All we know is that when the chaos of light waves which hit my eyes are ordered by my brain into a picture of what I call a "stove" and what I call a "thermometer" and "water" and a "pot"- all linguistic terms which have been constructed out of shared experience-- all I know is that when the water does what I have learned to call "boiling" then the line on the "thermomemter" is always at what we call "212"

And when you do it, your brain orders it the same way.

If you think you can know something that no one has ever experienced, please tell me about it. You can't do it. Nothing "exists" which has not been experienced.

And I experience God as "existing". If you don't, that's nice.

It's always the same with you, and I always end with a post like this, and I always tell you to read Nagel, and look at my siggy, and read the page on Process Theism here, and you don't.

"If physicalism is to be defended, the phenomenological features must themselves be given a physical account. But when we examine their subjective character it seems that such a result is impossible. The reason is that every subjective phenomenon is essentially connected with a single point of view, and it seems inevitable that an objective, physical theory will abandon that point of view." - Thomas Nagel, What Is It Like To Be a Bat?

Subjectivity and objectivity are different points of view of human experience- THAT seems to be what you will never understand

And then you come back and presume to tell me something ridiculous about what you think I believe- like last time you told me repeatedly that I was a "logical positivist" when I am nothing close.

And next week, we will have the same conversation and you will say the same things, and so will I, and you still will not understand.

Fun, isn't it?

Forget it.

When you actually understand my position from reading about it, I will be glad to answer. And now you will protest that I always throw references at you instead of summarizing them in my own words.

I have done both now

Bye.

[bookofmormontruth]

You just will never get it I guess- there IS "no actual stuff out there" that IS NOT EXPERIENCE ITSELF.

Science is objective experience we can all agree on. When the water boils, I put in the thermometer, and it reads 212 degrees.

You can do that I can do that, some guy in China or Greenland can do that with the same results. We call THAT KIND of experience "objective", because we can all verify it. That is what science does. It is linguistic and cultural truth-

On the other hand we have experience which is "subjective"- the way I see yellow, what is important to me, how I make decisions about who to marry, what makes my life worth living.

The way I taste salt- the way yellow looks to me.

Those are subjective- no one will ever understand the way I see these thing. BUT THAT IS HOW I EXPERIENCE THE WORLD- subjectively. EVERYTHING is subjective at first until you agree with me that you see it the same way I do- but when you verify that, you have made it "objective" SIMPLY BECAUSE WE HAVE AGREED on a common experience.

But you will never experience what makes ME happy, what it is about my wife that makes me love her, or what fulfills my life, OR how I experience God.

Those are private, subjective experiences- YET THOSE THINGS ARE VERY REAL! In fact they are what makes my life worth living-

Scientific facts do not make your life worth living. It's interesting. It's intriguing maybe it's fun- maybe its fulfilling, but not for everyone. DOING science may be fun for you, but facts are not "fun"- they are facts.

There is nothing "out there" but shared experience. That's the only way we can know what's "out there"- and it isn't even really "out there"

All we know is that when the chaos of light waves which hit my eyes are ordered by my brain into a picture of what I call a "stove" and what I call a "thermometer" and "water" and a "pot"- all linguistic terms which have been constructed out of shared experience-- all I know is that when the water does what I have learned to call "boiling" then the line on the "thermomemter" is always at what we call "212"

And when you do it, your brain orders it the same way.

If you think you can know something that no one has ever experienced, please tell me about it. You can't do it. Nothing "exists" which has not been experienced.

And I experience God as "existing". If you don't, that's nice.

It's always the same with you, and I always end with a post like this, and I always tell you to read Nagel, and look at my siggy, and read the page on Process Theism here, and you don't.

Subjectivity and objectivity are different points of view of human experience- THAT seems to be what you will never understand

And then you come back and presume to tell me something ridiculous about what you think I believe- like last time you told me repeatedly that I was a "logical positivist" when I am nothing close.

And next week, we will have the same conversation and you will say the same things, and so will I, and you still will not understand.

Fun, isn't it?

Forget it.

When you actually understand my position from reading about it, I will be glad to answer. And now you will protest that I always throw references at you instead of summarizing them in my own words.

I have done both now

Bye.

[Kenngo1969]

Many people claim to see miracles in their lives from all religions. Do you have better reason than Muslims to believe the personal information you receive is better than theirs?

I can't speak for anyone else (Mudcat), but the scriptures speak of God not giving His children (figuratively speaking) thorns when they ask for grapes, thistles when they ask for figs, stones when they ask for bread, or serpents when they ask for fish. This is so whether those children are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Baptist, Muslim, or of some other faith. God doesn't give me the good things while denying them to His children of other faiths.

Now, having said that, there are reasons why I am a Latter-day Saint and not a Baptist or a Muslim. Good seeds bear good fruit, period, in the lives of all sincere people of faith. Not all good seeds bear the same amount of good fruit, however: some yield thirtyfold, some sixtyfold, and some an hundredfold. But God gives all of His children who are sincere and devout good fruit, bread, and fish.

[citizen28]

Most LDS do see it that way - they believe in mormonism because it works and produces good things.

I think most LDS eventually concede that point when pressed on the truth claims. However, do you think that most LDS would agree that theirs is the one "true", universally applicable religious system with special access to God through ordinances, priesthood, gift of the Holy Ghost, etc? Few and far between is the Mormon who is happy to say that what works for him might not work for someone else (and perhaps I'm extrapolating your own views a little too far).

In fact that view is pretty mainstream, imo. Of course there are always a few who don't get it and think that these questions are about scientific "facts" and persist in asking inane questions about objective knowledge about the existence of God, supposing that only things observable to science are "real"

I'd say the positive effects of religion as you describe them are quite observable to scientists, particularly psychologists.

[jo1952]

What are the "necessary and sufficient reasons" for having meaning in your life; for having a reason to get out of bed in the morning?

What are the "necessary and sufficient reasons" for falling in love?

For being Happy?

For being fulfilled in your life?

How does one define the "cause" of those experiences?

This is going no where.

Exactly!!!

jo

[inquiringmind]

I hate to tell you, but, you don't have a clue. It was revealed to me that my wife was terminally ill. It was a wide awake, driving down the freeway, revelation. Vivid, like a dream but I was not sleeping, I was doing 70mph. By the time I got to work I was crying like a baby. It was so real, I was at my wife's funeral.

I freaked out for a week or so, then I started pushing to get medical tests. We thought she had pancrease cancer, we thought she had liver disease, turns out she had colon cancer. The words of the doctors were "It's a miracle we caught this so soon. It's stage 1 cancer she doesn't need chemo therapy."

Personal revelation saved my wife's life, for how long I don't know, but I hope it's long enough to get sealed.

Thanks for sharing this with us here.

I hope you and your wife have many more years together.

[elguanteloko]

But you will never experience what makes ME happy, what it is about my wife that makes me love her, or what fulfills my life, OR how I experience God.

Again, I don't doubt your experiences. What I doubt is the explanation you give to the experiences, mf. Do you get that so far? I don't question that you have an experience that you say is an influence of God but what I do question is that you experience God. Is the difference more clear now? I may experience pressure in my back but what caused the pressure is a different thing. It could have been my brother, my child, my wife, my friend, an angel... I don't question that you felt pressure in your back but what caused the pressure is what I'm questioning. You keep on saying "how I experience God" when that is not my doubt at all. My doubt is that you experience God, not how you experience God. Two VERY different things.

Those are private, subjective experiences- YET THOSE THINGS ARE VERY REAL! In fact they are what makes my life worth living-

I agree those experiences are private, subjective, and extremely important. No one can deny that, mf. What we can question is the origin of those experiences and that's something you still don't get.

Scientific facts do not make your life worth living. It's interesting. It's intriguing maybe it's fun- maybe its fulfilling, but not for everyone. DOING science may be fun for you, but facts are not "fun"- they are facts.

Who cares if an experiences makes your life worth living? I'm NOT talking about that. I'm speaking of the origin of the experiences, NOT of the quality and importance of the experience. Do you get that?

There is nothing "out there" but shared experience. That's the only way we can know what's "out there"- and it isn't even really "out there"

So, if you take science then that is the world I'm talking about. That is the world mormons think God belongs to. God is a corporeal God with powers that can affect the lives of people directly with miracles, healings, etc. They conclude these things without any real evidence for them.

All we know is that when the chaos of light waves which hit my eyes are ordered by my brain into a picture of what I call a "stove" and what I call a "thermometer" and "water" and a "pot"- all linguistic terms which have been constructed out of shared experience-- all I know is that when the water does what I have learned to call "boiling" then the line on the "thermomemter" is always at what we call "212"

So, when you experience miracles, what do you experience, mf? They aren't just events like any other, correct? They are effects from the divine influence and that divine influence is not experienced but deduced. That deduction is what I'm questioning. That simple.

And when you do it, your brain orders it the same way.

If you think you can know something that no one has ever experienced, please tell me about it. You can't do it. Nothing "exists" which has not been experienced.

Ready? Here it is: A is A. You saw that? Here's another one A is not equal to not-A. Here's another example:

If A then B.

A.

----

B.

I know B will follow EVERY TIME in the future when the condition "If A then B" and "A" are present at the same time.

And I experience God as "existing". If you don't, that's nice.

Once again, I don't doubt your experience but the description you give to the experience is loaded with unjustified stuff.

It's always the same with you, and I always end with a post like this, and I always tell you to read Nagel, and look at my siggy, and read the page on Process Theism here, and you don't.

...

Subjectivity and objectivity are different points of view of human experience- THAT seems to be what you will never understand

No one is denying that. MF, it isn't the first time I hear your position, brother.

And then you come back and presume to tell me something ridiculous about what you think I believe- like last time you told me repeatedly that I was a "logical positivist" when I am nothing close.

You are obviously an empiricist and that makes you similar in at least one thing to LP. That does NOT make you a logical positivist but to say your position is not even close to LP is clearly an overstatement.

Look, mf, if you really want to move forward (and I do want to move forward in this conversation with you) all you have to do is explain how is it that your explanation changes anything about the standards in science to assume the existence of physical things (since God is a physical being - and indeed everything is matter- then you won't have a problem with me trying to justify with scientific methods the stuff God is). How do you justify God's existence? If it isn't through scientific empirical methods, why take a different standard than with cancer or a virus, for example? Again, we are speaking of a physical thing in existence.

[elguanteloko]

Exactly!!!

jo

Exactly? When we speak of God we simply speak of fulfillment or of happiness? I thought God was a being that exists outside of your subjective experiences, isn't he?

[elguanteloko]

I can't speak for anyone else (Mudcat), but the scriptures speak of God not giving His children (figuratively speaking) thorns when they ask for grapes, thistles when they ask for figs, stones when they ask for bread, or serpents when they ask for fish. This is so whether those children are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Baptist, Muslim, or of some other faith. God doesn't give me the good things while denying them to His children of other faiths.

Now, having said that, there are reasons why I am a Latter-day Saint and not a Baptist or a Muslim. Good seeds bear good fruit, period, in the lives of all sincere people of faith. Not all good seeds bear the same amount of good fruit, however: some yield thirtyfold, some sixtyfold, and some an hundredfold. But God gives all of His children who are sincere and devout good fruit, bread, and fish.

I know it's weird... but I actually expect you to justify all this stuff.

[elguanteloko]

mfbukowski,

This seems to be your main point:

Subjectivity and objectivity are different points of view of human experience- THAT seems to be what you will never understand

All I've been saying, brother, speaks of the criteria and the internal justifications we use when we try and speak of these events we call experience (the experiences of a stone, of a plate, of a book, of light, etc) whether subjective or objective, it doesn't matter.

This means that whatever you speak of, you can reflect upon it and realize you thought something the wrong way or made inferences based on experiential data that wasn't really justified but you thought it was. All I'm saying, granting your experiences as they are, is that the religious person makes a TON of explanations that are not valid. He goes with explanations that are clearly not the most likely to be true, etc.

Man, I can't get any more clear than this.

[bookofmormontruth]

It must just be me, but I have no idea what elguanteloko's logic is even after reading it 4 times.

Basically, he has told mfbukowski that his personal experience is not from G-d, but from satan.

Yet, elguanteloko doesn't believe in G-d, but apparently believes in satan? What?

[mfbukowski]

mfbukowski,

This seems to be your main point:

All I've been saying, brother, speaks of the criteria and the internal justifications we use when we try and speak of these events we call experience (the experiences of a stone, of a plate, of a book, of light, etc) whether subjective or objective, it doesn't matter.

This means that whatever you speak of, you can reflect upon it and realize you thought something the wrong way or made inferences based on experiential data that wasn't really justified but you thought it was. All I'm saying, granting your experiences as they are, is that the religious person makes a TON of explanations that are not valid. He goes with explanations that are clearly not the most likely to be true, etc.

Man, I can't get any more clear than this.

What you are not understanding is that religious ideas are not "valid" by scientific criteria. They have nothing to do with objective experience and cannot be verified. I don't know why you cannot see that.

It's like telling someone they should not be mad at you. They are mad at you and that is it. Who are you to tell someone that their feelings are not "valid"?

"I like to paint- it makes me happy!"

"No it doesn't! You are mistaken! You are sad!"

THAT is what you are saying- that one can be mistaken about being happy. You are stuck on the idea that religion is about objective "reality" or objective experiences, AND IT IS NOT.

There is no criterion for judging what is or is not a "valid" feeling.

Now THAT is about as clear as I can make it too-

Religion is a world-view given by intuition or "revelation" which gives one peace, comfort, fulfillment and allows one to understand his purpose and function in the universe. It is a body of principles accepted on faith, and is not about facts.

That's it. That is absolutely as clear as I can make it.

[elguanteloko]

What you are not understanding is that religious ideas are not "valid" by scientific criteria. They have nothing to do with objective experience and cannot be verified. I don't know why you cannot see that.

The existence of a physical, megapowerful, omniscient being which is purported to create (or form) incredible stuff doesn't need some type of reliable evidence on his side? Why do you believe in that, then?

It's like telling someone they should not be mad at you. They are mad at you and that is it. Who are you to tell someone that their feelings are not "valid"?

Oh, no! I told you already we are NOT talking about the feelings at all! However, let's take this as an analogy. Let's say you get mad at me because you saw a series of events that lead you to conclude I stole your car. The experiences that lead you to believe I stole your car are NOT what can be doubted at all but the interpretation and the "putting together" and "making sense" of the experiences. That "making sense" is what I'm saying is completely ignored by the vast majority of religious people. They think their experiences automatically means God exists and that's just not how it works. There are eexplanations that are more likely to be true than other ones. That simple.

"I like to paint- it makes me happy!"

"No it doesn't! You are mistaken! You are sad!"

THAT is what you are saying- that one can be mistaken about being happy. You are stuck on the idea that religion is about objective "reality" or objective experiences, AND IT IS NOT.

Again, no. You can't be mistaken about being happy but your happiness may be based on you believing facts that are just not the case. Those facts and the existence of those facts as facts are what I'm questioning. For example, you may feel happy because you ran faster than I did in a race but you wouldn't if you knew that in reality I was poisoned by your father which wanted you to win. Do you see the difference?

There is no criterion for judging what is or is not a "valid" feeling.

No, but the facts to which they are reactions to are.

Now THAT is about as clear as I can make it too-

Well, thank you but I hope you see by now how you haven't gotten the point of what I'm talking about.

Religion is a world-view given by intuition or "revelation" which gives one peace, comfort, fulfillment and allows one to understand his purpose and function in the universe. It is a body of principles accepted on faith, and is not about facts.

What you accept on faith is supposedly based on facts taken to be true. What is taken to be true, not faith or trust, is what I'm questioning. If you have faith that God will help you then you are trusting in God but at the same time take certain facts about reality as real facts: the existence of God, God's abilities, etc. These things are taken to be facts though faith or trust in them may not be a fact in the proper sense.

That's it. That is absolutely as clear as I can make it.

[elguanteloko]

It must just be me, but I have no idea what elguanteloko's logic is even after reading it 4 times.

Basically, he has told mfbukowski that his personal experience is not from G-d, but from satan.

Yet, elguanteloko doesn't believe in G-d, but apparently believes in satan? What?

When discussion stuff we grant certain basic facts to discuss further conclusions based on those basic facts; otherwise we couldn't communicate at all.

[mfbukowski]

It is not based on facts.

I'm sorry, but it is hopeless.

[elguanteloko]

It is not based on facts.

I'm sorry, but it is hopeless.

Is God's physical existence purported by mormons to be a fact about reality or not?

[mfbukowski]

Is God's physical existence purported by mormons to be a fact about reality or not?

You do not understand what "reality" is.

I am a strict empiricist. Reality is experience. Nothing more, nothing less, either subjective or objective. There is no "reality" outside of what is experienced.- nothing more "out there". Period.

God's physical existence is a theoretical construct which is "verified" by my subjective experience that thinking this way enriches my life immeasurably. It is similar to the model of Newtonian physics which was based on experience- but objective experience, (a difference) which "worked" to enable many improvements in science- until a better theory came along, verified by other experiences (again objective- )

In addition, I have had sublime experiences which I know come from him; and there is no possible way to verify that experience as being "correct" any more than I need to verify I am being "happy"; it is a self-defining feeling. It is like suddenly coming on the rim of the Grand Canyon and you give out a gasp -"Beautiful!"-

Can you be mistaken at that moment that in fact the scene is NOT "beautiful"?

It is as real as any subjective experience can be- I don't doubt when I am hungry, or if I have a pain in my knee- I cannot be mistaken that I have a pain in my knee. There may be no explanation for pain- but it is "real" regardless and I cannot be mistaken that that is what I am feeling.

I think that is one of the points on which we part company. You cannot conceive of NOT doubting- I cannot conceive of doubting. I know it, Period, just as I know the sound of my wife's voice.

There are no facts which could prove or disprove any of this.

Thinking this way gives my life true meaning and has changed the core of who I am. In that way, it is similar on a subjective basis to Newtonian physics-(analogy) it works for me to produce meaning in my life until and if something "better" comes along- but I am certain at this moment that will never happen.

I am just doing this hopeful of a breakthrough, hopeful but far from confident.