The Uselessness Of Personal Revelation

[Mordecai]

...science and its methods don't indicate AT ALL such things as Gods or spirits...

Einstein would disagree with that. Of course, inferring the existence of God requires a "big picture" type of thinking, meaning that you can analyze the entirety of evidence and make sense of it collectively. That requires a more philosophical than scientific mind. As Einstein (a theist and one of the greatest scientists of all time) said, "The man of science, a bad philosopher makes." (Of course, there are exceptions, but the reality is, most scientists don't have the philosophy chops to handle such issues).

Antony Flew, former atheist and one of the great philosophers of our time, would disagree also. See, your belief that science doesn't support God's existence "at all" is based on your poor comprehension. It all comes down to that.

[bookofmormontruth]

I passionately dislike when "brother" is flippantly used.

A "brother" doesn't try to persuade us away from Father.

[elguanteloko]

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.

Well, you can claim that and anyone can claim that but you don't bother to give reasons for it; because of this, Mordecai, I have a hard time taking this seriously.

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.

From the times I can remember, like right now, you don't give reasons but just assertions.

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 do understand why they would think God influenced or made certain things or gave certain information. That's very easy to understand but the problem is that it isn't justified nor the best position to hold and I gave, many times, very precise reasons for that... not like you.

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.

The main reason why you think you couldn't have made those experiences up is because you believe those experiences are from a supernatural (or "spiritual) source, so there's no point in discussing that since that isn't the real difficulty. You claimed that #1, #2, and #3. If those are your premises then you are begging the question since #3 is what is in contention here. #1 and #2 are for another occasion since I'm sure to discuss them with you will lead to a whole different type of discussion.

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.

I just claimed that I think my reasoning is better than the ones I've seen thus far in this thread on this specific issue. Not on other issues, not on other threads, not on anything else outside this thread.

[elguanteloko]

Einstein would disagree with that. Of course, inferring the existence of God requires a "big picture" type of thinking, meaning that you can analyze the entirety of evidence and make sense of it collectively. That requires a more philosophical than scientific mind.

I actually agree with you here that God does require a more philosophical mind rather than a scientific one. However, we are talking about some events that are claimed to be from God or due to God's influence. VERY different issues here.

As Einstein (a theist and one of the greatest scientists of all time) said, "The man of science, a bad philosopher makes." (Of course, there are exceptions, but the reality is, most scientists don't have the philosophy chops to handle such issues).

haha! Hey, man, you won't get any objections to that claim from me! A good example of this is the W. L. Craig vs Lawrence Krauss debate. We can shake hands on this issue.

Antony Flew, former atheist and one of the great philosophers of our time, would disagree also. See, your belief that science doesn't support God's existence "at all" is based on your poor comprehension. It all comes down to that.

That claim was addressing a very specific type of events that are claimed to come from God. Big difference.

[elguanteloko]

I passionately dislike when "brother" is flippantly used.

A "brother" doesn't try to persuade us away from Father.

I don't want to persuade you away from "Father". I'm helping you guys out here.

[Mordecai]

Well, you can claim that and anyone can claim that but you don't bother to give reasons for it; because of this, Mordecai, I have a hard time taking this seriously... From the times I can remember, like right now, you don't give reasons but just assertions... I do understand why they would think God influenced or made certain things or gave certain information. That's very easy to understand but the problem is that it isn't justified nor the best position to hold and I gave, many times, very precise reasons for that... not like you. The main reason why you think you couldn't have made those experiences up is because you believe those experiences are from a supernatural (or "spiritual) source, so there's no point in discussing that since that isn't the real difficulty. You claimed that #1, #2, and #3. If those are your premises then you are begging the question since #3 is what is in contention here. #1 and #2 are for another occasion since I'm sure to discuss them with you will lead to a whole different type of discussion. I just claimed that I think my reasoning is better than the ones I've seen thus far in this thread on this specific issue. Not on other issues, not on other threads, not on anything else outside this thread.

#3 isn't a claim that the revelations came from God. It's a claim that the revelations were from a higher and better place; that claim is based on the content and the surrounding situation. Also, it's incredibly boring to debate with someone who is so amazingly presumptuous and ignorant of what other people are saying. I'm going to have to pass on this one.

[Jeff K.]

But you don't make sense. You presume the experience can be articulated to you when in fact like the blind man, you cannot comprehend color unless an outside source can show it to you.

My illustration:

A seeing man bears his testimony to a blind man that he knows what yellow looks like. "Its a beautiful color" he testifies. "It brightens my day".

"Can you describe it to me?" asks the blind man.

"Sadly no" says the seeing man. It is something you must experience to completely understand.

"Then it can't be true. You are misled, and there is no yellow" says the blind man.

In other words if you lack the faculty or choose not to use the faculty needed to see "yellow", you in effect lack the capacity to comprehend until you embrace and understand the aspect that allows you to "see" what is plain and clear to others. There will always be a lack of ability to articulate an experience which is beyond some, regardless of the depth and complexity of language. You refuse to understand that and so because you cannot see, you feel it useless or non existent. Explain electricity to a tribal leader that has never see or heard of it, and you will feel the same frustration some here do redarding your own lack of ability to articulate. You can provide benefits and effects, and tell them it is wonderful. But to the tribe, it is useless, they don't have it, and cannot conceive its usefulness to them.

Those with electricity know otherwise.

[zerinus]

I don't want to persuade you away from "Father". I'm helping you guys out here.

I don't think anyone here needs your help. Did you read my previous post? I think you are the one who needs a lot of help; and you would be doing yourself a great favor by trying to obtain help rather than give it, where none is needed nor requested.

[Mars]

I don't want to persuade you away from "Father". I'm helping you guys out here.

No thanks.

[elguanteloko]

#3 isn't a claim that the revelations came from God. It's a claim that the revelations were from a higher and better place;

Well, my point is that there is no such spiritual place/plane/being. God is included in that so there isn't any relevant distinction to be made.

that claim is based on the content and the surrounding situation.

I don't doubt this but the point is that the methods used to get to this conclusion are not the best ones.

Also, it's incredibly boring to debate with someone who is so amazingly presumptuous and ignorant of what other people are saying. I'm going to have to pass on this one.

?

[elguanteloko]

But you don't make sense. You presume the experience can be articulated to you when in fact like the blind man, you cannot comprehend color unless an outside source can show it to you.

My illustration:

In other words if you lack the faculty or choose not to use the faculty needed to see "yellow", you in effect lack the capacity to comprehend until you embrace and understand the aspect that allows you to "see" what is plain and clear to others. There will always be a lack of ability to articulate an experience which is beyond some, regardless of the depth and complexity of language. You refuse to understand that and so because you cannot see, you feel it useless or non existent. Explain electricity to a tribal leader that has never see or heard of it, and you will feel the same frustration some here do redarding your own lack of ability to articulate. You can provide benefits and effects, and tell them it is wonderful. But to the tribe, it is useless, they don't have it, and cannot conceive its usefulness to them.

Those with electricity know otherwise.

Again, I'm not questioning the experience but what caused the experience. I couldn't doubt that I saw my dead grandmother but what caused me to see my dead grandmother is another issue (and the one I'm discussing here).

[elguanteloko]

I don't think anyone here needs your help. Did you read my previous post? I think you are the one who needs a lot of help;

I did read it but found it so profoundly ridiculous that I won't respond to it. Yes, it was THAT bad.

and you would be doing yourself a great favor by trying to obtain help rather than give it, where none is needed nor requested.

LOL, well, you guys are the ones that knock on doors, remember? You can "close the door" if you don't like what I say. Feel free to do so.

[Jeff K.]

Again, I'm not questioning the experience but what caused the experience. I couldn't doubt that I saw my dead grandmother but what caused me to see my dead grandmother is another issue (and the one I'm discussing here).

If you can't comprehend electricity, how do we explain the cause it affects?

[elguanteloko]

If you can't comprehend electricity, how do we explain the cause it affects?

I'm asking you to justify what you say the cause is, not to tell me what you think the cause is.

[mfbukowski]

If there is a glimmer of hope, the time is now.

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.

God is none of the above- at this time.

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.

God's physicality is a "theory" I believe is "true" but it cannot be proven by today's science. It's like another theory which cannot be confirmed (yet). But I find the idea that he is a Man highly useful in explaining the world around me. His influence on the world is spiritual. Science in it's present state cannot "indicate" such things as spirits, though they might someday.

But there are also other ways of looking at that question- which I am myself considering presently, so I am not ready to take a position on whether God is in principle scientifically discoverable some day. I haven't decided yet what I think about that one, but I'm leaning against it. I think he will decide to remain always subjectively "verifiable", but I don't know.

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

Here is a biggie. My point is that there is NO "that which is perceptible" WHICH WE CAN TALK ABOUT.

This is a big point you don't seem to "get"- and your usual answer is "oh- then anything goes" which is totally wrong.

That is what makes me a "radical empiricist"- all WE CAN TALK ABOUT is perceptions- some are subjective- "my knee hurts" and some are objective "the two of us just saw a pink elephant"; "water boils at 100 degrees Celsius". To believe that there exists something else which is NOT PERCEPTIBLE is to believe in that which is not "real". Even illusions are "real illusions"- they trick our brains in "real" ways. In fact the "reality" of illusions and the fact that they can be shown experimentally shows a lot about how perceptions - and the world itself- is constructed by our perceptions if it.

God is "real" because he can be "perceived" subjectively, like pain, like beauty, like meaning in one's life, like personal feelings.

Every objective perception starts out as a subjective perception- the first scientist to measure the boiling point of what discovered it subjectively until it was verified by others- their perceptions confirmed it and made it "objective". This is the main argument made in Nagel's essay mentioned in my siggy.

To argue this point, you will have to take on Nagel, which means you will actually have to read him.

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.

Because he is not objectively perceived- his influence is subjectively felt- though there have been some like Joseph Smith, who, I believe, have seen him- subjectively or objectively, I don't know.

That he "organized the world" is a theoretical construct- he IS a "philosophical object" or a theoretical object- like maybe "dark matter" (dunno if that is considered as experimentally established- I am assuming it is a theoretical construct at the moment)

His influence in the world is largely caused by people's beliefs in him now.

So "what he did" is a theoretical construct- but "that he exists" is a subjective experience. So "He" is some of both.

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.

Yeah, well that goes both ways. You apparently don't read all my posts either.

I hope we have made some progress at least in discussion.

Probably no further responses from me today- got stuff to do.

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 25 May 2011 - 02:11 PM, said:

If you can't comprehend electricity, how do we explain the cause it affects?

I'm asking you to justify what you say the cause is, not to tell me what you think the cause is.

How does one justify what they say to someone who cannot comprehend what is being justified?

[mfbukowski]

...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).

Again the question is "the best explanation for what", but the rest is ok with me.

[mfbukowski]

I passionately dislike when "brother" is flippantly used.

A "brother" doesn't try to persuade us away from Father.

I don't think that is what he is doing- his arguments and reasoning are not good enough!

[mfbukowski]

E:

So you are presenting yourself as a "scientist" now instead of a "philosopher"?

[elguanteloko]

Again the question is "the best explanation for what", but the rest is ok with me.

The best explanation of what is called "revelation" or "spiritual experiences" in general, the influence of God included; to be more specific, of why they arise.

[elguanteloko]

E:

So you are presenting yourself as a "scientist" now instead of a "philosopher"?

No... but who cares? Do you get the points I'm trying to make or not? If not, why not?

[zerinus]

LOL, well, you guys are the ones that knock on doors, remember?

Well, I didn't think we needed any help from you in knocking on doors. I don't know what made you think we did.

You can "close the door" if you don't like what I say. Feel free to do so.

That is probably a valid statement. I think LDS are making a mistake to reply to your posts. That is why I hadn't until now.

[bookofmormontruth]

E:

So you are presenting yourself as a "scientist" now instead of a "philosopher"?

A philoscientist.

Unfortunately for elguanteloko, to be a good philoscientist, one must be able to think originally, and not be an academic clone demanding scientific "evidence" and justifications for the reality of our G-d.

[WalkerW]

I have never heard in my life someone say the spirit helped them find their car keys.

Unfortunately, I have.

[Deborah]

Unfortunately, I have.

I have. It happened to me. And it was one of those tender mercies that got me through the bigger stuff as this was at a critical time.