Holy Ghost: Says Different Things To Different People?

[mfbukowski]

Will he tell me what will actually end up working for me?

Why ask the HG anything, then?

Try this, as an atheist. Think of the HG as your own unconscious mind which you address directly to do away with confusion. It's like meditation. Deep inside you you have the answers to everything you need. Is that "God"? Don't worry about it- it doesn't matter much.

This is what Rorty sees as the agnostic future of religion- and it works- in my opinion until you realize that there really is another intelligence smarter than you directing you.

But you could be a perfectly acceptable "religious agnostic" as a start. Try it, you'll like it. http://www.amazon.com/Future-Religion-Gianni-Vattimo/dp/0231134959

In "Anticlericalism and Atheism" Rorty discusses Vattimo's work Belief and argues that the end of metaphysics paves the way for an anti-essentialist religion. Rorty's conception of religion, determined by private motives, is designed to produce the gospel's promise that henceforth God will not consider humanity as a servant but as a friend. In "The Age of Interpretation," Vattimo, who is both a devout Catholic and a frequent critic of the church, explores the surprising congruence between Christianity and hermeneutics in light of the dissolution of metaphysical truth. As in hermeneutics, interpretation is central to Christianity, which introduced the world to the principle of interiority, dissolving the experience of objective reality into "listening to and interpreting messages."

Perhaps you can see why this is relevant to Mormonism- seeing God as a "friend" and as an immanent being.

This is why the Maxwell Institute is now, reportedly doing Mormon Studies based on Heidegger.

[mfbukowski]

I don't know. You were the one that brought, like always and predictably, the issue of truth to this discussion.

Your problem in my opinion is the Correspondence Theory. It requires metaphysics. I see no need for metaphysics.

[mfbukowski]

That God answers some questions about matters of fact (such as whether JS was a false prophet or whether the BoM is a book inspired by Satan) doesn't mean God will answer any old question thrown at Him. Why do you assume that if God answers some factual questions of spiritual importance (such as doctrinal questions) he is bound to answer any question about any matter?

There are no facts, only interpretations which work better or worse for specific purposes

[Ahab]

There are no facts, only interpretations which work better or worse for specific purposes

I won't let the fact that I disagree with this statment override the fact that your idea may still be helpful to someone who believes what you are saying.

[Brian 2.0]

Try this, as an atheist. Think of the HG as your own unconscious mind which you address directly to do away with confusion. It's like meditation. Deep inside you you have the answers to everything you need. Is that "God"? Don't worry about it- it doesn't matter much.

This is what Rorty sees as the agnostic future of religion- and it works- in my opinion until you realize that there really is another intelligence smarter than you directing you.

But you could be a perfectly acceptable "religious agnostic" as a start. Try it, you'll like it. http://www.amazon.co...o/dp/0231134959

I'm totally on board with this way of looking it at. Pretty close to where I am at. The brain is a very mysterious and amazing thing and I view it with immense awe similar to how others are in awe with God. And I think there is something to mediation and clearing your head, resulting in peace and connections of ideas that happen if you didn't put yourself in that mindset. (Half my inspirations come when talking a way too long shower!). Is there a higher power directing that peace and mental connections? I personally don't think so or have evidence to believe there is, but I can never be 100% sure there isn't. Maybe there is and that'd be great.

Really the process is quite similar as to when I was a believer and felt I was getting inspiration from the HG. I always felt my experience with the HG as being most like the quote about it being "pure intelligence flowing into you." I still feel that way sometimes, quite a bit actually. The only difference now is how much credibility I lend to that "intelligence."

If it's something abstract or personal like an impression of "I love my wife, I shouldn't get a divorce" or "I feel I should continue this job", I am much more comfortable holding onto that idea then say if I got the impression that "my wife is cheating on me" or "I have cancer." With something that concrete or falsifiable, I can reject that idea if good evidence presents itself to the contrary. If there really is no evidence of my wife cheating, or if the doctor's test show no signs of cancer, I'm not going to hold onto those beliefs because "my mind told during meditation." I won't hold out belief in those impressions until evidences present themselves later.

When I did think these impressions were from the spirit, I would hold onto them much more closely, and would not be put off by them easily with conflicting evidences, or lack of evidence to support the idea. It was "inspiration to me from God" and that was evidence enough to justify belief.

So I think you are correct in that what you outlined is similar and has much the same effect, but the value of the resulting "impressions" is VERY different depending on whether you believe it came from your mind/unconscious/etc as opposed to from God.

Edited April 18, 2013 by Brian 2.0

[Bikeemikey]

There are no facts, only interpretations which work better or worse for specific purposes

Oh shucks... you really are smart...

[inquiringmind]

The answer, I believe, was hinted at by Canard78 and perhaps others who spoke of "individualized curriculum," To me, God, in his infinite love and wisdom, knows what is best for each of his children and how we best may grow and develop towards our best selves, as we may be so inclined. He understands that his different children may have different learning styles, different aptitudes, different inclination, and different circumstances, etc.. And, as such, it may necessitate guiding some of his children onto different paths and at different rates of progression and so forth...

Could some of those "different paths" be different denominations?

This reminds me of a quote from Brigham Young that I think I read once.

I had a link to a really nice online version of the JOD that was fairly easy to navigate (Cate, if you read this, could you send me that link again?), and I was surprised to find BY saying he'd been asked if a non-Mormon could make it to heaven, and answering, "yes, I think so."

I'm not sure that's a genuine quote, I'm not sure I remember what i read correctly, and I'm not sure BY actually said that (but I'd like to look it up again if he did, so if it rings a bell with anyone, please let me know.)

[canard78]

Could some of those "different paths" be different denominations?

This reminds me of a quote from Brigham Young that I think I read once.

I had a link to a really nice online version of the JOD that was fairly easy to navigate (Cate, if you read this, could you send me that link again?), and I was surprised to find BY saying he'd been asked if a non-Mormon could make it to heaven, and answering, "yes, I think so."

I'm not sure that's a genuine quote, I'm not sure I remember what i read correctly, and I'm not sure BY actually said that (but I'd like to look it up again if he did, so if it rings a bell with anyone, please let me know.)

Here's one:

http://en.fairmormon.org/Journal_of_Discourses

You can search inside by going to google and putting this in the search field:

site:fairmormon.org/Journal_of_Discourses "your search phrase here"

(with or without the quote marks depending on how 'tight' you want the search to be)

[Alvino]

*Sigh* Here we go again, old friend.

There ARE no facts, only interpretations (of experience)

As I take it, facts are correct interpretations.

If you really understood that you might give up atheism.

You mean if I accepted that; otherwise this would be a condescending thing to say and I take you to be a bit kinder than that. Feel free to present a case for this and I promise I'll do my best to address it. All you are doing is say it as if it was self-evident; it is not.

That was the insight which caused ME to give it up and embrace the reality of spiritual experience again.

How? I'm not looking for your story here but how it is you think that accepting "there are no facts, only interpretations" leads one or leaves open the window for embracing spiritual experiences as real.

Try this, as an atheist. Think of the HG as your own unconscious mind which you address directly to do away with confusion. It's like meditation. Deep inside you you have the answers to everything you need. Is that "God"? Don't worry about it- it doesn't matter much.

Done. (Don't agree that I have 'deep inside me the answers to everything I need', though)

This is what Rorty sees as the agnostic future of religion- and it works- in my opinion until you realize that there really is another intelligence smarter than you directing you.

"There really is"? A bit awkward coming from someone who supposedly rejects Metaphysics.

But you could be a perfectly acceptable "religious agnostic" as a start. Try it, you'll like it. http://www.amazon.co...o/dp/0231134959

I'll put it on my book queue though before it comes one that you may find singing a similar tune (the book presented in this video by the author):

Your problem in my opinion is the Correspondence Theory. It requires metaphysics. I see no need for metaphysics.

Why should I do the same?

[canard78]

*Sigh* Here we go again, old friend.

As I take it, facts are correct interpretations.

You mean if I accepted that; otherwise this would be a condescending thing to say and I take you to be a bit kinder than that. Feel free to present a case for this and I promise I'll do my best to address it. All you are doing is say it as if it was self-evident; it is not.

How? I'm not looking for your story here but how it is you think that accepting "there are no facts, only interpretations" leads one or leaves open the window for embracing spiritual experiences as real.

Done. (Don't agree that I have 'deep inside me the answers to everything I need', though)

"There really is"? A bit awkward coming from someone who supposedly rejects Metaphysics.

I'll put it on my book queue though before it comes one that you may find singing a similar tune (the book presented in this video by the author):

Why should I do the same?

Feel free to tell me to mind my own business. But... You're an atheist? I've no issues with that (I'm married to one. Or she's fast approaching being one) it's just that it puts a whole different perspective on what you've been asking me the whole time.

All this time I thought you were defending the orthodox Mormon perspective that the HG could only testify of the Mormon expression of truth and not both for and against the same truth.

Is your objection not that the Holy Ghost can't lie (given you perhaps don't believe he exists), but that my position creates a HG that is a cop-out? A creation that satisfies both the beliefs I have and the beliefs others have, but in doing so creates a figure that makes no sense and couldn't really exist and therefore implies that I've not thought my position through to its ultimate conclusion?

I'm going to have to re-read the thread. I feel like I've just reached the end of Sixth Sense and hitting repeat to watch it through again (and yes I missed it first time round). I'm not right keen as they'd say in Yorkshire.

[Alvino]

Feel free to tell me to mind my own business. But... You're an atheist? I've no issues with that (I'm married to one. Or she's fast approaching being one) it's just that it puts a whole different perspective on what you've been asking me the whole time.

All this time I thought you were defending the orthodox Mormon perspective that the HG could only testify of the Mormon expression of truth and not both for and against the same truth.

Is your objection not that the Holy Ghost can't lie (given you perhaps don't believe he exists), but that my position creates a HG that is a cop-out? A creation that satisfies both the beliefs I have and the beliefs others have, but in doing so creates a figure that makes no sense and couldn't really exist and therefore implies that I've not thought my position through to its ultimate conclusion?

I'm going to have to re-read the thread. I feel like I've just reached the end of Sixth Sense and hitting repeat to watch it through again (and yes I missed it first time round). I'm not right keen as they'd say in Yorkshire.

I expect this won't come as a shocker but we humans are able to reason about ideas we don't actually hold. Actually, to see if an idea is good or not (that is, before we accept it) we can think whether contradictions or problems pop out of it and then decide whether we should hold it or not.

Don't bother re-reading my posts. They assume God exists, the HG exists, the HG cam communicate with us, etc. They have nothing to do with atheism and any believer could share my objections without any threat to their belief in God.

[canard78]

I expect this won't come as a shocker but we humans are able to reason about ideas we don't actually hold. Actually, to see if an idea is good or not (that is, before we accept it) we can think whether contradictions or problems pop out of it and then decide whether we should hold it or not.

Don't bother re-reading my posts. They assume God exists, the HG exists, the HG cam communicate with us, etc. They have nothing to do with atheism and any believer could share my objections without any threat to their belief in God.

I'm still impressed. I guess I'm so caught in the process of trying to resolve what I do believe (it's an evolving process) the idea of reasoning about something I don't seems like an impressive achievement.

Your questions challenges have left me plenty more to consider.

[mfbukowski]

So I think you are correct in that what you outlined is similar and has much the same effect, but the value of the resulting "impressions" is VERY different depending on whether you believe it came from your mind/unconscious/etc as opposed to from God.

It's a start.

From here, one can take an Alma 32 approach to exercise a particle of faith that there is an Intelligence outside yourself which is actually directing you - because in my experience there is no way that the direction you receive in your life could be random.

Then it can evolve into understanding the immanent God of Mormonism- our Father- could and does fit the model, and such an understanding is confirmed by the Powers that Be.

But for some coming from our background I suppose it need not go any further than considering that the image of the "Ideal Us"- that model of "filling the measure of our creation and having joy therein" is all within us. And then one reads this...

20 And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:

21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

...in a totally new way.

Once one erases worrying about facts vs interpretations, the world becomes a very different place.

[mfbukowski]

I won't let the fact that I disagree with this statment override the fact that your idea may still be helpful to someone who believes what you are saying.

That's good

Thanks for saying that

[mfbukowski]

Oh shucks... you really are smart...

Nah- I stole that from Nietzsche and the boys!

[mfbukowski]

Could some of those "different paths" be different denominations?

This reminds me of a quote from Brigham Young that I think I read once.

I had a link to a really nice online version of the JOD that was fairly easy to navigate (Cate, if you read this, could you send me that link again?), and I was surprised to find BY saying he'd been asked if a non-Mormon could make it to heaven, and answering, "yes, I think so."

I'm not sure that's a genuine quote, I'm not sure I remember what i read correctly, and I'm not sure BY actually said that (but I'd like to look it up again if he did, so if it rings a bell with anyone, please let me know.)

It's clear doctrine that non-Mormons "go to heaven" - this is nothing extraordinary at all.

[Maidservant]

Think about it some more while trying to understand why I don't agree with you on this issue.

Yes, it is the same fire, even though it hasn't done as much damage at one point than at another point in time. It's still "it".

Yes, both are holding onto the same elephant, and Yes, while both parts are different parts they are still parts of the same elephant. As is often the case, the problem is with saying "no" and thus denying what is actually true/correct.

They serve their purpose. Something is either true or it isn't true in any way whatsoever.

Your example is central to the OP. Different doesn't necessarily mean contradictory is the main point I get from the OP and this thread and this example.

Ha ha. I wasn't going to reply because I agree with you (I think) on the use of the term contradictory and I don't think of things being contradictory most of the time--that is, if something seems contradictory (gospel-wise), that just points you to a greater thing to learn that ties them all together (like the elephant ties the ear and the tail together). Thus, contradiction becomes a local phenomenon with limited and specific applicability and limited use. Or use-lessness, as the case may be. So I would not argue with you about the idea of contradiction.

But there is contradiction and then there is paradox. They look almost the same. And I personally have come to accept that truth cannot exist without paradox. That is, if a person things they are going to find truth by grabbing hold to one side of a binary, then they have half the truth, not all the truth. The truth is in the paradox--all things in one. Are men true or are women true? Neither. Both. People point to math as "facts" and "truth" and I accepted this and was puzzled and challenged by this until I realized that math is an interpretation or story also--that is, for example, is base 10 better than base 2 or base 60? So even 2+2 = 4 is only true in that system to which it belongs. Anyway, I'm not saying this straight at you, just spilling some thoughts I have about it.

But even all that aside--what made me want to answer is that I WOKE UP this morning with my example and its problem still on my brain--agh! ha ha--and your thoughtful answer to it, and I have been pondering so I could see why this example has been so important to me--I mean, it stuck with me to the point that I shared it out here, so it's one of those things that foments in my brain. Ha ha.

So this is what I came to:

Why would I want to only see "a" as the truth? That's not even any fun! ha ha.

If I confine myself to "a", then that's all I'll get.

If I open myself to holding a, b, c and d as all true or "true", then I will arrive at the treasures of understanding that each position yields and I won't need to discard any of them. I want all of that truth! And of course I'm not just talking about a fire or a river here, I'm talking about "TRUTH" and my frame of reality and of the world.

Now I'm not saying my approach is better or the best, but I love living my approach and the "truth" is endless that way.

Things like whether or not Joseph Smith was visited by the Father and Son--this, to me, is not properly called "the truth". It is an event that happened (or not). Joseph Smith either reported correctly an event that happened to him, or he made up an event and lied to everybody about it.

Events either happened or didn't happen and we find out whether they happened or didn't happen. But the truth is something else, to me. Not even sure yet completely how I would articulate TRUTH, I'm still working on it and discussions like this and the ideas you gave me, are helpful to me to keep working it out. But for me, truth is not static. It's creative. It's living. As a historian, I deal with events all the time, and certain things can be said to have happened, with certainty. But the narrative about the event is a thing that is constantly molded. Makes a historian somewhat of a magician.

See, even if we could report accurately (NOT truth--accuracy) that the Father and the Son visited Joseph Smith--this does not arrive at the truth. A person could know about this event and still find that it has no meaning for them. On the other hand, a person could find out that Joseph Smith may have fashioned a theology out of whole cloth and still find it breathtakingly meaningful (I try that on for size sometimes--and I always come to the conclusion that IF Joseph Smith made all this up--WOW! WHO IS HE!). I'm not saying a lot of people would--but it's possible.

Anyway, truth is one of those slippery ideas. And I guess this is even a ways off of the OP, which is more about the action of a being (or set of beings) we call the Holy Ghost. In this thread, we haven't even discussed too much the nature of the Holy Ghost and about how that might affect what we think about how communication might take place and the content of that communication.

Sorry, just couldn't get all this off my mind, lol . . .

[Brian 2.0]

Once one erases worrying about facts vs interpretations, the world becomes a very different place.

You have quoted this argument a few times, and while I think I understand what Nietzsche is getting at with it, I don't see how you are applying it to you life, and how the world becomes a different place for you.

I get that we all view the world from our own unreliable senses and that in the end we could just all be in the Matrix and a tree isn't even factually a tree, but how do you apply this in your life? You must allow yourself some assumptions about the world in order to live practically in it. You obviously aren't jumping in front of a moving bus because of the laws of physics might not be "true" but only "interpretations". How does the rubber meet the road with this comment and how you actually live life?

[mfbukowski]

As I take it, facts are correct interpretations.

You mean your, and others, interpretations of what is "correct" according to their experience, Still interpretations. Realize you are fighting all of Continental philosophy of the 20th century here AND the Pragmatic half of the analytical portion of Anglo- American philosophy here, not just me. I wish I dreamed this up, but I certainly didn't. It is not an idea that one dismisses with a one-liner on a message board

How? I'm not looking for your story here but how it is you think that accepting "there are no facts, only interpretations" leads one or leaves open the window for embracing spiritual experiences as real.

Well to put 100 years of philosophy into a few lines is not easy, but here goes.

All we have as data to understand the world is the sum total of human experience. Science however ignores personal subjective experience. Yet in our personal lives, ALL we have as human people IS personal subjective experience. Every single "fact" YOU have learned comes out of subjective experiences YOU personally have had. In fourth grade someone taught the person Alvino, say, how to do long division. That was a a process of the society in which you lived giving you personal subjective experiences about what works for that society to enable you to do a certain calculation which would be useful in life. You - personally and subjectively- learned about geography as your society understood it and took it all to be "facts" about things you had not personally experienced. But someone else had, and you took it on faith that they were not mistaken or lying.

Science taught you implicitly that what you personally experienced was not important, that only things which other people had seen also were important. Ignore dreams and visions- those things cannot be verified by someone else, so they are not "real".

But still every day of your life is lived in the subjective mode. It is YOU who gets hungry- subjectively- YOU who decides what is "important" for you to do today, who to see, what to talk about etc. You live your life in the subjective, but yet because it is a world of "feeling" and because you have been taught to ignore that world you accept that it is not "real". Feelings are irrelevant- what matters it what other people tell you is "real".

But what ARE feelings? They are subjective experiences of how you relate to the world. For each of us, feelings are completely important- but our naturalistic society deprecates their importance.

I believe that experiences of "God" are just as real as any subjective experiences we have as humans - regardless of the fact that science, to me, ignorantly, deprecates their importance. God is as real to me as anyone else around me- I interact with him- I ask questions and he answers- but this is all through subjective feelings -EXACTLY LIKE ALL THE OTHER SUBJECTIVE FEELINGS I use to make decisions of importance every day of my life. He is as real as anything.

But I did not make this up- this in story form is the entire insight of both the Pragmatists and of Phenomenology on the continent. Obviously all are not theists, but all affirm the importance of the subjective mode of experiencing the world and in so doing, ignore the "appearance / reality distinction" Rorty talks about in the video.

All of what is known as "Postmodernism" does implicitly as well- the world is seen as contingent and all is relative. There is no "truth" but that which we create.

And the truth I create for myself includes the affirmation that God exists and is as real as anything or anyone else, and no one can show how that is not "real".

Done. (Don't agree that I have 'deep inside me the answers to everything I need', though)

"There really is"? A bit awkward coming from someone who supposedly rejects Metaphysics.

An excellent point. Wittgenstein understood the problem well, and believed that metaphysics could not be discussed at all, but arguably lived as a religious man, who believed in a kind of "subjective metaphysics" which was beyond language- the "unspeakable". So logical speech about God is unspeakable- but for me what I am saying is "Think about God as if he is this way, and see if it works for you." I am not saying he IS such a way or that way, just that thinking that way is fruitful for me. Big difference.

To me the correspondence theory is metaphysics because it postulates a world beyond language and experience to which our language "corresponds" but all you have is language to talk about it. Big inconsistency.

According to the deflationary theory of truth, to assert that a statement is true is just to assert the statement itself. For example, to say that ‘snow is white’ is true, or that it is true that snow is white, is equivalent to saying simply that snow is white, and this, according to the deflationary theory, is all that can be said significantly about the truth of ‘snow is white’

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-deflationary/

[Ahab]

Sorry, just couldn't get all this off my mind, lol . . .

Many good thoughts. Thank you for sharing, and I do understand at least some of what you mean.

I think the concept of truth you're considering is more about the ramifications of things that either happened or are happening or will happen, which I agree are also a part of truth/reality but what I would consider more like other things that are also true. To me I see truth as if every little event/thing/idea can be broken down into smaller and more basic components, and also can be added together for an even larger perspective.

Like in the statement you suggested about how Joseph Smith saw our Father and Jesus Christ. That itself is the truth, or a part of the truth, but that truth can be broken down into smaller components/perspectives/events/things that are true, too, as well as added to other things that are true to help us see the larger picture. Things like how did he see them, with there being many ways to think about the "how" of that, and also how were they to be seen. Like where were they before he saw them, and how did they get to the point/time/place/event where he was able to see them. And "what" did he see, exactly. Our Father and Jesus Christ, but what did they look like to him? The description he gave tells only part of that truth, and regardless of the words he could have chosen those words alone would not have been able to do justice to what he saw. They are truly more than what we can see when we look at them, literally, and it can be difficult to catch even a glimpse of all that they are, or what anyone else is for that matter, just by looking at the outward appearance.

Anyway, I think you're onto thinking about things like that now, and it is truly intriguing. I hope to hear a lot more of your thoughts.

[Maidservant]

Like in the statement you suggested about how Joseph Smith saw our Father and Jesus Christ. That itself is the truth, or a part of the truth, but that truth can be broken down into smaller components/perspectives/events/things that are true, too, as well as added to other things that are true to help us see the larger picture. Things like how did he see them, with there being many ways to think about the "how" of that, and also how were they to be seen. Like where were they before he saw them, and how did they get to the point/time/place/event where he was able to see them. And "what" did he see, exactly. Our Father and Jesus Christ, but what did they look like to him? The description he gave tells only part of that truth, and regardless of the words he could have chosen those words alone would not have been able to do justice to what he saw. They are truly more than what we can see when we look at them, literally, and it can be difficult to catch even a glimpse of all that they are, or what anyone else is for that matter, just by looking at the outward appearance.

I like this. Components, hmmmm . . . I shall be thinking on this . . .

[mfbukowski]

You have quoted this argument a few times, and while I think I understand what Nietzsche is getting at with it, I don't see how you are applying it to you life, and how the world becomes a different place for you.

I get that we all view the world from our own unreliable senses and that in the end we could just all be in the Matrix and a tree isn't even factually a tree, but how do you apply this in your life? You must allow yourself some assumptions about the world in order to live practically in it. You obviously aren't jumping in front of a moving bus because of the laws of physics might not be "true" but only "interpretations". How does the rubber meet the road with this comment and how you actually live life?

You misunderstand.

All we know about the world is filtered through our brains and senses- that is actually a contradictory statement but let's let it go at that for teaching purposes.

When you bump into a table- you have the experience of "bumping into a table". It is "real" because EXPERIENCE IS REAL. ALL WE CAN KNOW ABOUT REALITY IS OUR EXPERIENCE.

So if you have the experience of getting hit by a truck- you have been hit by a truck. Forget about any reality beyond your experience- it LITERALLY DOES NOT EXIST.

To confirm that you were hit by a bus, which existed outside of your experience, you would have to PUT ASIDE your experience to see what the bus "really was" and then say- yep- it was a bus all right!

BUT YOU CAN'T DO THAT!

I am not saying there is not a world out there- JUST THAT THE WORLD IS WHAT WE EXPERIENCE

You walk into a door- you experience walking into a door not because there are two worlds- 1-what we experience and 2-the door "corresponding" to the experience- THERE IS JUST THE EXPERIENCE OF WALKING INTO A DOOR. The experience IS reality.

There is no world beyond human experience. It is so tremendously strange to me to see the trouble people have grasping this- we are all so brainwashed into Cartesian dualism we cannot get out of it. It is common sense!

Why would you postulate some parallel universe which is real, and some other universe which is separate which is the way we experience things, which somehow unexplainedly "corresponds" to so shadow reality we never see??? That is crazy talk!!

What you see is what you get-

If you experience God, then God is as real as anything else you experience!! It is simple as that!!

Why would you exclude from your personal experiences that which can be verified by others? Do I question that I love my wife because others do NOT love her? How much sense does that make?

[mfbukowski]

I get that we all view the world from our own unreliable senses and that in the end we could just all be in the Matrix and a tree isn't even factually a tree, but how do you apply this in your life?

Why are our senses "unreliable"? Because we make mistakes? Because we see mirages and optical illusions? Don't you also come to find - through your senses- that you were mistaken?

You see a mirage, and walk toward it- it disappears. Does that make your senses "unreliable"? No- it means you thought you saw something but later investigation ( through your senses) proved it wrong.? It wasn't that your senses were unreliable- just that you misinterpreted the practical effects of what you saw.

You saw water, but there wasn't any. It's still all your personal experience! Discovering no water is just as much a personal experience as the illusion of water was in the first place! Your personal experience eventually proved a mistake at first- that's all!

[Ahab]

...

So if you have the experience of getting hit by a truck- you have been hit by a truck. Forget about any reality beyond your experience- it LITERALLY DOES NOT EXIST.

To confirm that you were hit by a bus, which existed outside of your experience (unless you meant prior to getting hit by it), you would have to PUT ASIDE your experience (his experience includes being hit by that bus, so what the...) to see what the bus "really was" and then say- yep- it was a bus all right!

BUT YOU CAN'T DO THAT! (wrongo #4 in this post, because he really can)

I am not saying there is not a world out there- JUST THAT THE WORLD IS WHAT WE EXPERIENCE (wrongo #5, as it would still be the world even if "we" did not experience it)

You walk into a door- you experience walking into a door not because there are two worlds- 1-what we experience and 2-the door "corresponding" to the experience- THERE IS JUST THE EXPERIENCE OF WALKING INTO A DOOR. The experience IS reality.

There is no world beyond human experience. It is so tremendously strange to me to see the trouble people have grasping this- we are all so brainwashed into Cartesian dualism we cannot get out of it. It is common sense!

What are you thinking of as the "world"? This planet? Are you saying it wouldn't be here if we were not here? Who is this "we" you speak of? You seem to be thinking in a very narrow perspective.

Why would you postulate some parallel universe which is real, and some other universe which is separate which is the way we experience things, which somehow unexplainedly "corresponds" to so shadow reality we never see??? That is crazy talk!!

What you see is what you get-

If you experience God, then God is as real as anything else you experience!! It is simple as that!!

Why would you exclude from your personal experiences that which can be verified by others? Do I question that I love my wife because others do NOT love her? How much sense does that make?

The main problem I see in many of your arguments is that you deny things that are true. Please stop that. Please.

[mfbukowski]

The main problem I see in many of your arguments is that you deny things that are true. Please stop that. Please.

I have no idea what you are talking about, as usual.