The Uselessness Of Personal Revelation

[elguanteloko]

Atheists can simply point to a study like Humans 'predisposed' to believe in gods and the afterlife and say religion survives because it is integral to human nature and not because God is real. Such is foolishness on their part, but doesn't mean they can't use the argument.

Why is that foolish? If we have a desire of something, does that mean that something exists? If not then how can this be foolish? No one is saying that BECAUSE we are predisposed to believe in gods and afterlives then God is mere fiction but that some ideas don't need to correlate to actual existing stuff for those ideas to exist. We can be fooled.

New Scientist has a fun article The grand delusion: Why nothing is as it seems pointing to various articles about how our perception and memory of the world is a mental fabrication (each of the sub articles can be read with a free registration -- a silly nuisance -- but the articles really are fascinating). An atheist will simply wrap spiritual perception into that grand delusion though I side with Brigham Young who said,

We know this since Kant. As you know, however, not everything goes, right? So, why not stop arguing as if it did and start focusing on actually justifying one's claims about God or see if they are even consistent?

Though ironically, we are not above deceiving ourselves from time to time as to what is and isn't the Spirit of God.

So, then, what's the use of it? It may be normal human intuitions and you don't need a super natural existing stuff to discover that. To determine what it is you need to think and stop mystifying things.

[mfbukowski]

Nevertheless, I get what you mean and glad.

I can see how I confused you!

[elguanteloko]

Thanks for sharing your inspiring experiences. You definitely should write a book!

When the non-believers and those who turned their backs on G-d ask in the after-life where the "evidence" was for His existence? They will be told that the evidence was around their lives continually for everything denotes that their is a G-d and that He showed His evidence through people like Hamba Tuhan and his sharing of his experiences to the world. Not sure how a person can honestly reject countless testimonies of the truth, but I have to give credit to the great deceiver or our world, he is doing a fine job, unfortunately!

I already told you how but you just don't get it. Do you think sporadic and never properly confirmed and understood "miracles" is a way of convincing someone who actually thinks these issues through? You strike me as someone who hasn't taken the time to understand what the other side is saying at all... at all.

[elguanteloko]

RE: an explanation of the usefulness of the experience of personal revelation:

Its usefulness is in its promotion of well-being. As the essential link between faith and knowledge, personal revelation is useful for advancing one’s well-being if it is applied correctly. It serves as such a link when it comes from God.

When it comes from Satan, it only a bridge between a belief and a conclusion that is accepted as knowledge, but it does not advance one’s well-being. In this case it is not useful, expect perhaps to Satan.

I differentiate between a link and a bridge as follows: a link is an integral part of the working relationship between faith/belief, revelation/discovery, and knowledge/conclusion that produces well-being, and a bridge is an artificial construct that connects these things without necessarily sustaining long-term well-being.

Personal revelation most often, it seems, comes from oneself, as with the typical learning process in using the five senses. In this instance it sometimes links a correct belief with a correct knowledge (useful); sometimes it bridges a correct belief with incorrect knowledge (not useful) or vice-versa (temporarily useful, but if the incorrect belief isn’t eventually corrected it will not be useful); sometimes it bridges an incorrect belief with incorrect knowledge (not useful).

People learn the difference between the divine, devilish, and human (a.k.a. carnal and sensual, and not necessarily in a completely negative way) sources of revelation through experience. Personal revelation may be rendered useless if it is not heeded or if it is misapplied, but it is not in and of itself useless.

How are these experiences a "bridge" (a good one, that is) between faith and knowledge? Via verification? Google verificationism and why that is a horrible way of doing proper science. Yes, we are trying to do proper science.

[Deborah]

This, again, has nothing to do with the issue and some of you guys just keep on not getting it.

Since almost everyone else seems to be on the same page has it occurred to you that you're the one not getting it?

[elguanteloko]

Here is the problem:

You seek for an "explanation" within your own paradigm, which is that "Truth corresponds to reality"- that there is an "explanation" which is "better" than others because it "corresponds" better to what you call "reality".

The truth is, you are believing in a world which doesn't exist. There are no "better explanations".

How do you think your explanations are "better"?

What do they do better?

No no no. We seek explanations of stuff in the best possible method. Sure we may be in a paradigm but that is the best we can do (science and a specific model of it, in this case). So what? Therefore, God exists? Therefore, I'm justified in believing in whatever the heck I want? Therefore, what I believe is correct ipso facto and I don't need to think it through? Mystifying God, mf, is not going to help and speaking of paradigms and the fluidity of reality is also not going to help you. If you haven't noticed by now, the size of God is diminishing precisely because of people like you that, when faced with strong objections to the methods of justifying God's existence, fall short and fall back to a more mystical conception of Him to safeguard their beliefs. I'm bringing serious objections to your epistemological justifications and all you keep on trying to do is make stuff less "real" (and you know what I mean by that word; I'm not a dogmatist nor an absolutist so don't try to make my position into a caricature. I'm speaking of best and worst as far as we can see). That won't help your case, you are only damaging it.

You should know why my explanations are better than yours if you have studied any philosophy of science and epistemology, mf. Do you want me to go through them? Simplification? Falsificationism? Consistency? Parsimony? You really don't get these criterion?

If you have better then put them forward; I don't think you have. If you can admit that scientific criteria is the best we've got yet then why not put a physical being that influences physical stuff (the God of mormonism) to the test? At least admit that by the best standards God isn't justified at all but that you choose to believe in him; THAT is a brave faith, my friend, and that is what I would like religious people to have: a smart and brave faith. Until that time you will be exposing your God to some serious humiliation you don't need to.

[Libs]

Yeah, things can be quite different in countries where the bulk of the population doesn't share the basic Christian values we so often take for granted. My first thought was to try to get him to hospital via a taxi, but both drivers I managed to hail down at such a busy time of the morning refused to take the fare once they saw the 'mess.' At the same time, there are very, very good people in such places, too. My cries for help were answered by two filthy street sweepers who agreed to help me carry the poor boy to the police station. They were the 'dregs' of society, but they had pure hearts when called upon to give assistance. God bless them!

Yes, God bless them...and you for helping that poor young man! What country was this in, Hamba?

[elguanteloko]

Since almost everyone else seems to be on the same page has it occurred to you that you're the one not getting it?

Yes it has but then I think and realize I'm right. We can go through the process more slowly if you want. All you need to do is try to answer these few question for us to move on:

How do you know what you consider "spiritual revelation" is actually from a supernatural, almost-all-powerful (or all powerful) physical being?

Why is God the best explanation for these experiences you have? I'm not asking you about the experiences but the origin or explanation of the causes of the experiences.

You see? Very simple indeed.

[elguanteloko]

This thread has reminded me of an account of a similar conversation many years ago, I quote the following:The only way to determine if something is of God is by the spirit.

You sure can go around in circles.

[elguanteloko]

Fascinating articles- thanks!

This is precisely the sort of thing I was talking about with E- Mr crazy glove.

"What is real" is not always that clear!

It kinda offends me that you think I don't know this stuff. At least I grant you some knowledge by default, mf. You seriously think telling me that what is the case is not always clear affects my objections against your God at all as if I hadn't thought about that before?

[Alla]

Yes it has but then I think and realize I'm right. We can go through the process more slowly if you want. All you need to do is try to answer these few question for us to move on:

How do you know what you consider "spiritual revelation" is actually from a supernatural, almost-all-powerful (or all powerful) physical being?

I don't know HOW. I just know it.

Why is God the best explanation for these experiences you have?

Because when Holy Ghost testifies it is different than when I have my own ideas.

So, I don't know how to explain this, it is not possible to explain another person. It is something that you have to experience yourself than you will find out that you will NEVER ask these questions again.

[elguanteloko]

I don't know HOW. I just know it.

? Well, what makes you think you know, then?

Because when Holy Ghost testifies it is different than when I have my own ideas.

Differences in experience doesn't imply a spiritual intervention, does it? Example: "I feel different when I sharpen my pencil than when I think of the color blue... therefore, the Spirit reveals the color blue since it is a different kind of experience."

So, I don't know how to explain this, it is not possible to explain another person. It is something that you have to experience yourself than you will find out that you will NEVER ask these questions again.

You say that because you don't get what I'm asking. I'm not asking you to describe to me what salt tastes like or how blue looks like or anything like that. I'm asking how you justify that there is a divine intervention in all of that of a physical, all-powerful deity. VERY different questions.

[Mordecai]

Yes it has but then I think and realize I'm right.

How do you "know" you're right? Because you think your line of reasoning is superior. But from my experience (and I've noted, several other people's experience), you don't have the reading comprehension to determine whose line of reasoning is the best. If you can't even comprehend what others are saying, who are you to say you have the best position? Because of that, your word has little sway on this issue.

[elguanteloko]

How do you "know" you're right? Because you think your line of reasoning is superior. But from my experience (and I've noted, several other people's experience), you don't have the reading comprehension to determine whose line of reasoning is the best. If you can't even comprehend what others are saying, who are you to say you have the best position? Because of that, your word has little sway on this issue.

LOL Ad hom squad just arrived. You can think of my words, you don't need to think about me.

[Mordecai]

LOL Ad hom squad just arrived. You can think of my words, you don't need to think about me.

I did think of your words. You claimed to have "thought about it" and "realized you're right." Again, why would you think that? Because you think your line of reasoning is the best. Why does that have no authority? Because you don't know what other people are arguing, judging by the things that you say, i.e. your words.

You may say I've poisoned the well, but you did that yourself (at least with regard to claiming you have the best line of reasoning), as you've repeatedly failed on this board to illustrate that you can comprehend other people's arguments well. You can't.

[zerinus]

I already told you how but you just don't get it. Do you think sporadic and never properly confirmed and understood "miracles" is a way of convincing someone who actually thinks these issues through? You strike me as someone who hasn't taken the time to understand what the other side is saying at all... at all.

I have looked at most of your posts in this thread; and you strike me as someone who has done something to "grieve the Spirit" (Ephesians 4:30; D&C 63:55; 121:37), and that Spirit has left him spiritually blind and destitute. You will not be able to recover from that unless you repent of whatever you have done to cause this to happen, and regain that Spirit which you have lost. Failing that, you are wasting your time starting these kinds of threads, and engaging in these kinds of debates.

[mfbukowski]

Since almost everyone else seems to be on the same page has it occurred to you that you're the one not getting it?

We are just too stupid and deluded I guess!

[mfbukowski]

No no no. We seek explanations of stuff in the best possible method. Sure we may be in a paradigm but that is the best we can do (science and a specific model of it, in this case). So what? Therefore, God exists? Therefore, I'm justified in believing in whatever the heck I want? Therefore, what I believe is correct ipso facto and I don't need to think it through? Mystifying God, mf, is not going to help and speaking of paradigms and the fluidity of reality is also not going to help you. If you haven't noticed by now, the size of God is diminishing precisely because of people like you that, when faced with strong objections to the methods of justifying God's existence, fall short and fall back to a more mystical conception of Him to safeguard their beliefs. I'm bringing serious objections to your epistemological justifications and all you keep on trying to do is make stuff less "real" (and you know what I mean by that word; I'm not a dogmatist nor an absolutist so don't try to make my position into a caricature. I'm speaking of best and worst as far as we can see). That won't help your case, you are only damaging it.

You should know why my explanations are better than yours if you have studied any philosophy of science and epistemology, mf. Do you want me to go through them? Simplification? Falsificationism? Consistency? Parsimony? You really don't get these criterion?

If you have better then put them forward; I don't think you have. If you can admit that scientific criteria is the best we've got yet then why not put a physical being that influences physical stuff (the God of mormonism) to the test? At least admit that by the best standards God isn't justified at all but that you choose to believe in him; THAT is a brave faith, my friend, and that is what I would like religious people to have: a smart and brave faith. Until that time you will be exposing your God to some serious humiliation you don't need to.

You haven't answered the question. You don't even see the point. If you think you are arguing against it- you don't even comprehend it.

You keep saying things like "science is the best we've got" and REFUSE to answer the question "for what?"

We seek explanations of stuff in the best possible method

What stuff? What is "best"? This is incredibly imprecise- I have no idea what you are talking about.

You seem to have a serious case of tunnel vision- you can only see things your way. SCIENCE IS ONLY GOOD FOR CERTAIN KINDS OF VERIFICATIONS OF TRUTH.

I really would like to have a serious discussion with you- but there is no communication.

[elguanteloko]

I did think of your words. You claimed to have "thought about it" and "realized you're right." Again, why would you think that?

It is the simplest and most plausible explanation. If you read what I've written and think about it carefully you will be able to see it.

Because you think your line of reasoning is the best. Why does that have no authority?

I don't need authority nor my words do. All we (my words and I) need is to make sense.

Because you don't know what other people are arguing, based on the things that you say, i.e. your words.

Oh! Please tell me how I'm not understanding others here. I could be wrong, I really have no problem with that but I need you to explain to me why I am if I am. If you don't think I am right nor have relevant reasons to think that I'm wrong... well, then..

I remember you used to say I didn't read well and that's fine with me but it isn't very smart to say that because I was wrong before that I am wrong now, is it? You may think I have no credibility and that's fine but reasons need not credibility in this issue. If you notice, btw, I'm granting everyone here perfect credibility with regard to their experiences; I don't doubt them.

You may say I've poisoned the well, but you did that yourself (at least with regard to claiming you have the best line of reasoning), as you've repeatedly failed on this board to illustrate that you can comprehend other people's arguments well. You can't.

Again, if you think I've misrepresented someone's view please tell me how, I really want to know.

[elguanteloko]

We are just too stupid and deluded I guess!

No, you guys are not stupid nor deluded. For Pete's sake, brother, I'm not against you guys!

[Mordecai]

It is the simplest and most plausible explanation. If you read what I've written and think about it carefully you will be able to see it... I don't need authority nor my words do. All we (my words and I) need is to make sense.

They may make sense, when you don't understand what other people are saying. But when you compare your line of reasoning with others, yours doesn't measure up. Sadly, again, you don't comprehend what others are saying.

Oh! Please tell me how I'm not understanding others here.

It's pretty obvious to people with good reading comprehension. I've told you in the past that you don't understand what I'm saying, but you don't understand or believe that either.

It's pretty obvious to me why people believe their experiences come from God, having read several of the same posts you read, except I understood them well. If you didn't understand them, why would my reiteration or in-depth explanation be easier to understand? It's pretty straight forward.

I believe my experiences came from God, because I believe #1 God exists and is good and #2 God created mankind and #3 the experiences I had definitely came from a better and more exalted place than I'm from. I couldn't have made up the experiences I had.

No, you guys are not stupid nor deluded. For Pete's sake, brother, I'm not against you guys!

You just have vastly superior understanding of everything there is to understand, so you have to ram that down everyone's throat, even when multiple people try to explain to you that you're confused. That's rather antisocial.

[Libs]

It is the simplest and most plausible explanation

I probably missed it, because I have had a difficult time keeping up with this thread (haven't read every word), but what, exactly, is "the simplest and most plausible explanation", in your view?

How would you explain an experience like Hamba's, for example?

[mfbukowski]

No, you guys are not stupid nor deluded. For Pete's sake, brother, I'm not against you guys!

I really would like to communicate with you, but I can't figure out what is stopping you from seeing it.

The "simplest" explanation is not always true. This is a highly complicated world.

[elguanteloko]

You haven't answered the question. You don't even see the point. If you think you are arguing against it- you don't even comprehend it.

You keep saying things like "science is the best we've got" and REFUSE to answer the question "for what?"

If I'm not mistaken you never asked that question before so... Anyways, science (its methods and assumptions) is the best we've got to discover and analyze and confirm the existence of observable, measurable stuff. Not all stuff is observable but God is since he is claimed to be physical and to actually influence the world. I don't get why these aspects don't fall within the scope of science. I'm not saying, also, that science disproves God but that science and its methods don't indicate AT ALL such things as Gods or spirits.

What stuff? What is "best"? This is incredibly imprecise- I have no idea what you are talking about.

What suff? Perceptible stuff. Not perceptions but that which is perceptible.

You seem to have a serious case of tunnel vision- you can only see things your way. SCIENCE IS ONLY GOOD FOR CERTAIN KINDS OF VERIFICATIONS OF TRUTH.

LOL Brother, don't you remember I said before that logical, mathematical, and philosophical objects of knowledge are not scientifically verifiable? I agree with you but God is neither a purely logical object, nor a purely mathematical object, nor a purely philosophical object. Tell my why a physical being that affects the world with his power doesn't fall within the scope of science.

I really would like to have a serious discussion with you- but there is no communication.

Because there's no memory on your part. You think I'm claiming science can get us any type of knowledge when I've explicitly said that is not the case several times already.

[elguanteloko]

I really would like to communicate with you, but I can't figure out what is stopping you from seeing it.

The "simplest" explanation is not always true. This is a highly complicated world.

Oh, I know that, brother, and I agree. We may very well be wrong and you guys (the religious people) correct but as far as we can see your position is the least likely to be true. That does NOT mean nor imply that you guys are wrong at all but that your position is not the better justified of the two (theism vs atheism). That's ALL I'm saying. Remember, mf, I'm NOT saying you guys are wrong in believing in God nor that I have the truth nor that you guys don't have the truth nor that we can get to the absolute truth nor that science can tell you what happiness feels like, etc, etc.

...all I'm claiming is that your position is not the most likely to be the case by all best accounts and that you guys can realize that but still choose to follow what you guys know is not the best explanation but believe to be true (or the good one though not the justified one).