Holy Ghost: Says Different Things To Different People?

[Ahab]

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

Gee, even after I added comments and used bold text and underscores to highlight what I was talking about.

Just not part of your reality, I suppose you might say, which I also see as another denial from you about a part of your reality.

[Calm]

Gee, even after I added comments and used bold text and underscores to highlight what I was talking about.

Just not part of your reality, I suppose you might say, which I also see as another denial from you about a part of your reality.

Maybe a few exclamation points and smilie faces might help!?!

[mfbukowski]

Gee, even after I added comments and used bold text and underscores to highlight what I was talking about.

Just not part of your reality, I suppose you might say, which I also see as another denial from you about a part of your reality.

If you have comments use the quote function. I am not going to bother to sort out what I said and you bolded from what you just wrote over it. I have no idea what you scribbled all over my post.

[Ahab]

If you have comments use the quote function. I am not going to bother to sort out what I said and you bolded from what you just wrote over it. I have no idea what you scribbled all over my post.

Wow, you can't tell my comments from your own comments, huh. Okay, I'll try to disguish them a little better for you.

Generally I'm just saying that we can experience more than what is in our own reality, now, by finding out more about things in all of reality. We're not limited to our own experiences, now, because there is more that we are able to experience. And even if we never experience everything in ALL of existence, those things that exist outside of our experience still exist as a part of reality, if they in fact are a part of reality. Reality doesn't depend on what we know or experience, in other words. Reality exists whether or not we ever experience it.

[mfbukowski]

Reality exists whether or not we ever experience it.

Prove it.

How do you get outside what people have experienced to "reality"??

What "exists" that no one has ever experienced?

Edited April 18, 2013 by mfbukowski

[Calm]

Wow, you can't tell my comments from your own comments, huh. Okay, I'll try to disguish them a little better for you.

Generally I'm just saying that we can experience more than what is in our own reality, now, by finding out more about things in all of reality.

But once you've done that, it is part of your experiences and now your reality.

How can you know what is and isn't reality except through experiencing it? (learning being an experience)

Edited April 18, 2013 by calmoriah

[mfbukowski]

But once you've done that, it is part of your experiences and now your reality.

How can you know what is and isn't reality except through experiencing it? (learning being an experience)

Suppose we are talking about the Eiffel Tower, but we have not ever been there personally to see it. At first we go on other people's experience, pictures, written accounts etc. At that point the tower is part of the communal experience of mankind but it is not yet a personal experience. It is objective, not subjective for us at this point.

But when we visit Paris, and go up in the tower and experience it directly, it becomes a "subjective" experience for us personally. We might take pictures of our friend, buy a funny hat or a souvenir etc- now it becomes "ours". We have given it personal context and meaning. We look back and think about "Oh-remember that time at the Eiffel tower when Bob did thus and so"?

The experience of God is similar. We may hear of people talk of Moroni 10:4-5 or Alma 32 and perhaps we believe in the way we believe in the Eiffel tower before we visit it.

But after we have a testimony we have direct personal experience of it- we don't need to rely on anyone else for confirmation.

Often people who turn from the church want only to go on objective experience- the word of others- about what is "real". This is the scientific point of view. It's fine for what it does, BUT IT INTENTIONALLY LEAVES OUT THE SUBJECTIVE COMPLETELY. Science is not about what I personally experience- it is interested in calling "real" only those things we all can agree on experiencing. So it would not talk about MY experience of the Eiffel Tower- though it was perfectly "real"- it would only talk about measurements of how high it is, how much it weighs, it's history etc. It doesn't care one whit about how important it is to you- because say that is where you proposed to your future wife. Those subjective "real" experiences are irrelevant to science, as are our personal experiences of God.

Yet we LIVE in the "real subjective" every day of our lives, experiencing things for ourselves for the first time, experiencing new decisions, learning new things and taking on new situations, making decisions about our lives.

It is not that the "objective" is more real than the "subjective"- it is just a different point of view of the same thing.

Edited April 18, 2013 by mfbukowski

[Brian 2.0]

Let me ask you some questions to try and understand what you're thinking on this.

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.

Say you have a vivid dream where you walked into a door and hurt your nose. And another time, awake, you walked into a door and hurt your nose.

What is the difference between the two? How are the two actual doors different? The experience is same. Obviously you would apply your the experience of waking up in your bed over the previous experience and realize it was just a dream, correct?

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

How does one "experience God"? Seem that this is putting a label (God) onto some other experience. Wouldn't it be more accurate to say, "If you experienced a burning in the bosom, then that burning in the bosom is as real as anything else you experience." How can you apply the God label to that 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!

So if you can't identify that is "really way" a bus, then you can't identify that it "really is" God you're experiencing correct? Are you arguing that no one can "know" that there is a God? That we can experience God, but that does not correspond to there actually being a God beyond simply our own experiences with him? That God can never be any more "real" than my son's imaginary friend that he full believes he is interacting with?

Edited April 18, 2013 by Brian 2.0

[go_utes01]

So if you can't identify that is "really way" a bus, then you can't identify that it "really is" God you're experiencing correct? Are you arguing that no one can "know" that there is a God? That we can experience God, but that does not correspond to there actually being a God beyond simply our own experiences with him? That God can never be any more "real" than my son's imaginary friend that he full believes he is interacting with?

Or any of your son's "real" friends that he interacts with.

[mfbukowski]

Say you have a vivid dream where you walked into a door and hurt your nose. And another time, awake, you walked into a door and hurt your nose.

What is the difference between the two? How are the two actual doors different? The experience is same. Obviously you would apply your the experience of waking up in your bed over the previous experience and realize it was just a dream, correct?

Exactly. Just like the mirage. We wake up and say- "oh - it was a dream!" and instantly forget about it

How does one "experience God"? Seem that this is putting a label (God) onto some other experience. Wouldn't it be more accurate to say, "If you experienced a burning in the bosom, then that burning in the bosom is as real as anything else you experience." How can you apply the God label to that experience?

You can do that if you want, but then silly people will turn it into a game to ask if it was "really" the burning of the bosom etc. How do you know the voice of your wife? You just know it.

I was in a crowd with a bunch of relatives- siblings of my wife, at a sporting event. She was in a another crowd heading in our direction- the siblings were wondering if she was in that group that was coming. I said "of course she is!- she is right there!" and they could still not see her!

I knew instantly from the way she moved, walked, the bounce of her hair, the color of her clothes, everything- that the others would not recognize. She totally stood out to me as if she was the only one wearing red in a group of people dressed in black. At one glance, I could see her and the other still could not after I pointed her out several times.

So if you can't identify that is "really way" a bus, then you can't identify that it "really is" God you're experiencing correct? Are you arguing that no one can "know" that there is a God? That we can experience God, but that does not correspond to there actually being a God beyond simply our own experiences with him? That God can never be any more "real" than my son's imaginary friend that he full believes he is interacting with?

What would one mean by "really" if all we can know is what we experience? Are those experiences "really real"? What does that mean in the context?

Billions of people believe God is "real" and believe they have had some kind of experience showing that. What about them? Are they all imagining it?

When you get hit by a bus you don't care if it was a bus or a truck. You know something major just happened and that what happened was very real indeed. When you experience God it doesn't matter at that moment if you call him Shiva or Allah- you know something just happened.

Talk to your son in detail about his friend. You will find that he knows the difference just fine- and I can guarantee that the imaginary friend has never beaten him up or hurt him. My son had an imaginary pet mouse named Squeaky, that lived under the stairs. He totally knew that his friend was not the same as the neighbor boy's "real" pet mouse. He knew that he could not see him the same way, and that he was "pretend".

The word "know" is a measure of certainty - nothing more or less. In spotting my wife at the sporting event, I might have said "I think I see her" or "Isn't that her over there?" But I "knew" it was her.

Aristotle "knew" that the four elements were earth, air, fire and water. He "knew" that the sun (let's say) went around the earth. Was he wrong about knowing that?

People are mistaken all the time- including scientists. The change in science alone should tell you that what we "know" today may not be the same as what we know tomorrow. Does that mean that no one knows anything today because it will be changed tomorrow? Of course not!

Is Pluto "really" a planet? Is this "new species" really a NEW species?? It has been around for millions of years, yet we call it "new" because effectively the name for it has just been invented.

Fish taxonomists found the previously unknown shark at a market in Taiwan—no big surprise, according to study co-author William White.

"Most fish markets in the region will regularly contain sharks," White, of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization in Hobart, Australia, said via email.

In fact, he and a colleague had headed to the Tashi Fish Market specifically to "collect some material and to see whether there were noticeable differences in the [shark] catches from previous decades," he said.

"Amongst a number of other species, we collected a number of Squalus species—one of which was this new high-fin species."

The new species, Squalus formosus, is a three-foot-long (one-meter-long) short-nosed dogfish. It's distinguished from other dogfish species in the Squalus genusby a particularly upright first fin on its back, a strong spine, and a very short, rounded head, White said.

http://news.national...rmosus-dogfish/

The attitude is that those poor ignorant people have been eating this for years, but NOW it is NEW because SCIENTISTS now verify its existence. WE western science types have "discovered a new species"! What hogwash!

That's like telling Native Americans that Columbus discovered America. All their generations don't count because no one of IMPORTANCE "knew" they existed

Edited April 18, 2013 by mfbukowski

[Brian 2.0]

Exactly. Just like the mirage. We wake up and say- "oh - it was a dream!" and instantly forget about it

Cool. I was hoping you weren't going to continue further down the rabbit hole and say something like, "who's to say the dream wasn't real and your awake time is a dream."

I like the mirage analogy you used, and I want to use it to respond to another quote of yours...

Often people who turn from the church want only to go on objective experience- the word of others- about what is "real".

As someone who has turned (somewhat) away from the church I take a some umbrage when people try to say that my leaving was because I "listened to anti mormon stuff" or "was deceived by others who have left." It robs me of my own personal decisions. I turn from it because I choose to turn from it. I can be listening to myself and my own thoughts and feelings on the matter. Sure the "word of others" can start me thinking on something, but the decision is still mine. Just as the missionaries can be "the word of others" to start an investigator on a path to conversion.

I'm turning from it because of new experiences that don't line up with my past experiences. It's as though I got to the "water" and realized it was just a mirage. There may be a new way of looking at things or something where I was simply mistaken in thinking the mirage meant water, but whatever it was, what I'm not denying that I experienced seeing a mirage, I just now have a different viewpoint of what the mirage meant.

...but then silly people will turn it into a game to ask if it was "really" the burning of the bosom etc. How do you know the voice of your wife? You just know it.

i still think there is labeling going on there though. You have seen and heard your wife's voice when she is standing right in front of you. So when you hear it without her in front of you, you connect it and recognize it. With communication from God, most need to be trained to recognize that. It was part of the commitment pattern when I was teaching on our mission... "what you are feeling right now is the spirit." Through the scriptures and general conference talks we hear various different way to recognize when the spirit is talking to us. That is relying on the words of others to steer you into recognition. And even if you do it all yourself, and you assign the label yourself the first time it happens... "wow... what is that feeling... that must be God communicating with me." How can you "just know" you are applying the correct label? Unlike your wife, you haven't spent hours and hours with God where you can connect that feeling or voice to the person of God so that when God is not around you'll recognize His voice. If the veil to our pre-mortal life was lifted than maybe you could.

Someone like JS who had a personal visit from God could, I guess. He could say, when God appeared to me in the grove I has a certain feeling, heard a certain voice, and now I'm having that same feeling, and hearing that voice, so I "just know." But for the rest of us, we have been told what "god's voice" sounds or feels like and have applied that label when said feeling came along, or we self-assigned that feeling to God on our own.

Billions of people believe God is "real" and believe they have had some kind of experience showing that. What about them? Are they all imagining it?

When you get hit by a bus you don't care if it was a bus or a truck. You know something major just happened and that what happened was very real indeed. When you experience God it doesn't matter at that moment if you call him Shiva or Allah- you know something just happened.

I don't deny "spiritual" experiences that people have. I don't think they are lying when they say "something just happened." I'm just saying that the label put on it (Shiva, Allah, God, Spaghetti Monster, The Secret) is arbitrary. A very real experience is not proof of the existence of the assigned label (God).

Edited April 19, 2013 by Brian 2.0

[mfbukowski]

A very real experience is not proof of the existence of the assigned label (God).

Yes it is. It is the sign of something. When you get hit by a truck, maybe you are wrong that it was a truck, but was a bus or a freight train. The words don't matter, but the reality does.

You are changed for life. Something happened that changed you call it whatever you like.

But if you were praying to "Heavenly Father" - why would you think the flying spaghetti monster would answer?

[mfbukowski]

i still think there is labeling going on there though. You have seen and heard your wife's voice when she is standing right in front of you. So when you hear it without her in front of you, you connect it and recognize it. With communication from God, most need to be trained to recognize that.

Right there, you contradict yourself. You need training in both instances. Before she was your wife she was just some girl you didn't know. In both cases you still had to "get acquainted".

Edited April 19, 2013 by mfbukowski

[Brian 2.0]

Yes it is. It is the sign of something. When you get hit by a truck, maybe you are wrong that it was a truck, but was a bus or a freight train. The words don't matter, but the reality does.

You are changed for life. Something happened that changed you call it whatever you like.

But if you were praying to "Heavenly Father" - why would you think the flying spaghetti monster would answer?

I agree it's a sign of "something", but what that something is still very much open to debate. It could be from God, from confirmation bias, from cultural upbringing, deception... that something could be a billion different things. At this point you start to talk about evidence of why would think that "something" is God or XYZ... you provide evidence of the connection. but the experience itself isn't evidence of what that "something" is. Correlation does not equal causality.

Edited April 19, 2013 by Brian 2.0

[Brian 2.0]

Right there, you contradict yourself. You need training in both instances. Before she was your wife she was just some girl you didn't know. In both cases you still had to "get acquainted".

I'm not contradicting myself, I'm saying they are very different types of training. With you wife, you are around her, and you know you are around her, everyong else agrees that you are around her often... then later you recognize things that are so familiar to you from first hand experience. And you can prove to that person in the crowd that you were right in identifying your wife when she gets closer and it is actually your wife. The person in the crowd can also trust you because he knows you are so "familiar" with your wife so you would recognize her walk.

With God... you are not "around Him" in the same sense that you were around you wife when you are dating. They are very different way of "getting acquainted". You can't prove to anyone your experience is "from God" in the same what you can prove to your friend that the person walking toward you is your wife. And why should I trust your label of the experience being from God. I believe that you had that experience before. i believe that your have the experience often. And i believe that you are having that experience now. But I have no evidence to show that you know what label to apply to that experience.

Again, a very real experience is not proof in and of itself of the existence of the assigned label (God), it is only proof of the experience. Period. I will grant unto anyone who has said experience that "something happened" but to believe that said experience is from God requires more evidence.

Edited April 19, 2013 by Brian 2.0

[go_utes01]

I'm not contradicting myself, I'm saying they are very different types of training. With you wife, you are around her, and you know you are around her, everyong else agrees that you are around her often... then later you recognize things that are so familiar to you from first hand experience. And you can prove to that person in the crowd that you were right in identifying your wife when she gets closer and it is actually your wife. The person in the crowd can also trust you because he knows you are so "familiar" with your wife so you would recognize her walk.

With God... you are not "around Him" in the same sense that you were around you wife when you are dating. They are very different way of "getting acquainted". You can't prove to anyone your experience is "from God" in the same what you can prove to your friend that the person walking toward you is your wife. And why should I trust your label of the experience being from God. I believe that you had that experience before. i believe that your have the experience often. And i believe that you are having that experience now. But I have no evidence to show that you know what label to apply to that experience.

Again, a very real experience is not proof in and of itself of the existence of the assigned label (God), it is only proof of the experience. Period. I will grant unto anyone who has said experience that "something happened" but to believe that said experience is from God requires more evidence.

Why does it require more evidence? If somebody has experienced something, even if they can't prove it to others, does that make the experience any less real? Joseph Smith or Paul were unable to empirically prove that they had a firsthand experience with God to others, does that make their experience and testimony any less "real"? They knew they had an experience with God, and they knew God knew, and that was enough for them - why can't the same be true for each individual that experiences God?

[Brian 2.0]

Why does it require more evidence? If somebody has experienced something, even if they can't prove it to others, does that make the experience any less real? Joseph Smith or Paul were unable to empirically prove that they had a firsthand experience with God to others, does that make their experience and testimony any less "real"? They knew they had an experience with God, and they knew God knew, and that was enough for them - why can't the same be true for each individual that experiences God?

Again. The experience itself is real. And I don't doubt that for the person. But just because the experience is real, it doesn't mean said experience is from God.

A fundamentalist has an experience with God where they say they were instructed to marry some 14 year old.

An extremeist has an experience with God where they say they were instructed to bomb an abortion clinic.

Would you say their experiences are from God? Even if "they knew and they knew that God knew"?

I don't doubt their "experiences" or their testimonies of said experience, but I am skeptical that those experiences came from God. I'd like more evidence that a Supreme Being in the universe instructed them to do such things, especially before I supported the underage wedding or drove the bomber to the abortion clinic.

Avoid extreme comparisons.

[mfbukowski]

Why does it require more evidence? If somebody has experienced something, even if they can't prove it to others, does that make the experience any less real? Joseph Smith or Paul were unable to empirically prove that they had a firsthand experience with God to others, does that make their experience and testimony any less "real"? They knew they had an experience with God, and they knew God knew, and that was enough for them - why can't the same be true for each individual that experiences God?

Absolutely.

And if you take the savior at his word in all the places where he says that "the kingdom of heaven is within you" and "not of this world and similar sayings, it becomes even more clear

You have to understand that EVERYTHING you know is ultimately part of your "subjective" experiences. Every little parcel of information- where Antarctica is, the sum of 1+1, your mother's name, the capital of South Carolina, how to ice skate - EVERYTHING is something that YOUR mind learned somewhere.

No one else learned it for you- it's all "in YOUR head" -- no place else!

That makes all those things "subjective" to some degree- certainly recalling them and using those alleged "facts" is something that goes on in YOU and not out here in the world. We live all of our lives in the subjective mode- and yet we are supposed to now ignore parts of that because "science" tells us it's "not real" because it's just "in our heads"???

Absurd!

[mfbukowski]

Again. The experience itself is real. And I don't doubt that for the person. But just because the experience is real, it doesn't mean said experience is from God.

But the whole point is that it also doesn't mean it's NOT from God!

But all we have is our experiences? How do you know that your perception of a pool of water is "coming from water"? All we have is our experience! That is the only reality we can know!

In a scientific sense, there is no way to prove it either way. Yet atheists take the default position that it's "false" with no better reason than theists who say it is "true". In a scientific sense, take your pick!

But theists KNOW there is an intelligence guiding them because they experience it on a continuing basis. I am not responsible for what YOU think and know, only what I think and know.

And billions know, and know that God knows that they know.

The choice is simple!

[mfbukowski]

I'm not contradicting myself, I'm saying they are very different types of training. With you wife, you are around her, and you know you are around her, everyong else agrees that you are around her often... then later you recognize things that are so familiar to you from first hand experience. And you can prove to that person in the crowd that you were right in identifying your wife when she gets closer and it is actually your wife. The person in the crowd can also trust you because he knows you are so "familiar" with your wife so you would recognize her walk.

With God... you are not "around Him" in the same sense that you were around you wife when you are dating. They are very different way of "getting acquainted".

My point is that in an Alma 32 sense there IS no difference. You know God by getting acquainted the same way you do with anyone else.

You can't prove to anyone your experience is "from God" in the same what you can prove to your friend that the person walking toward you is your wife. And why should I trust your label of the experience being from God. I believe that you had that experience before. i believe that your have the experience often. And i believe that you are having that experience now. But I have no evidence to show that you know what label to apply to that experience.

Again, a very real experience is not proof in and of itself of the existence of the assigned label (God), it is only proof of the experience. Period. I will grant unto anyone who has said experience that "something happened" but to believe that said experience is from God requires more evidence.

I really wish I could get this through to you. Why do you need to prove it to anyone else? Who cares what they think? You are divorcing the "label" from the "experience" as if there is a difference.

That is like asking "prove to me that right now you are thinking of your mother- NOW! I want proof"

If someone said that to me- I might say-

"Get lost! So what? I don't give a ________ that you want me to prove what I am experiencing. Who are you to ask? I know what I am experiencing and don't have to prove it to anyone!"

We are programmed by language and we cannot think without it. "Labels" do not exist independently from "experiences"- they are PART of the experience! You are now just applying the same old dualism from the "experience" opposed to "reality" to "experience" opposed to "labels". There is no definable difference between the experience and what we call it.

Let's do a thought experiment- ok?

Think of someone you know- could be anyone- mom, girlfriend, someone from church- it doesn't matter.

Think of that person's name and a little flash of a picture of that person will pop up in your mind. Try it again and again. In fact, when you are thinking of a person in the first place- someone to pick- I bet that even before the label is in your mind, you will see the little picture first.

Thomas Monson. What did you see?

You cannot separate the "experience" from the "label"- they are all part of the same thing.

They are how we organize our worlds from matter unorganized. Sound familiar? There's a reason for that!

[mfbukowski]

Again. The experience itself is real. And I don't doubt that for the person. But just because the experience is real, it doesn't mean said experience is from God.

It ultimately is unprovable where it came from and doesn't matter anyway.

What matters is the practical effect such an experience has in your life. Again, Alma 32. Is the experience "sweet"?

What's wrong with going after sweet experiences? We don't know if it's water or a mirage at first- we act on it until we "know". But soon enough we will know for sure, either way. That's why they call it "faith"

[mfbukowski]

I agree it's a sign of "something", but what that something is still very much open to debate. It could be from God, from confirmation bias, from cultural upbringing, deception... that something could be a billion different things. At this point you start to talk about evidence of why would think that "something" is God or XYZ... you provide evidence of the connection. but the experience itself isn't evidence of what that "something" is. Correlation does not equal causality.

No, and really this is like the question of if light is a wave or a particle? The answer is "yes"!

When we measure it as a particle, it is one, when we measure it as a wave, it is one.

What you see is what you get- and ultimately what it "is" is unknowable- all we know is how we experience it. All that matters is the experience and whether or not it works for the intended purpose- filling the measure of our creation and having joy therein.

Why are you so concerned about proving everything to other people?

[Brian 2.0]

But the whole point is that it also doesn't mean it's NOT from God!

True. I agree that could it could be from God, just as it could be from a multitude of other sources besides God.

It ultimately is unprovable where it came from and doesn't matter anyway.

What matters is the practical effect such an experience has in your life"

Agreed. And so you're a pragmatist when it comes to this? You believe or choose to believe because of the effects of said belief?

I totally respect that. What I'm saying, and I'm pretty sure you would agree as well seeing that you are not a fan of correspondence theory, is that having a "spiritual experience", in and of itself, is not evidence of a corresponding Supreme Being that exists In the "real world".

[mfbukowski]

True. I agree that could it could be from God, just as it could be from a multitude of other sources besides God.

Agreed. And so you're a pragmatist when it comes to this? You believe or choose to believe because of the effects of said belief?

I totally respect that. What I'm saying, and I'm pretty sure you would agree as well seeing that you are not a fan of correspondence theory, is that having a "spiritual experience", in and of itself, is not evidence of a corresponding Supreme Being that exists In the "real world".

No experience of anything is evidence of anything "outside" that experience. How could ANYTHING ever be "verified" if you have to get outside of experience to a world no one has ever seen to "verify" ANYTHING?

That's why even thinking about "Correspondence" makes no sense! You cannot get outside of human experience to see any world outside.

You cannot verify "correspondence" of anything. You would have to look at "reality" - without experiencing it, and then say "yep- the experience 'corresponds' to reality"- but we cannot do that!

What we experience IS REALITY. Yes, sometimes experiences are ambiguous or incompatible with someone else's experience- so what?

We cannot know anything else about anything except what HUMANS ARE CAPABLE OF EXPERIENCING. THERE IS NO "OUTSIDE"!

How could there be?

That seems so obvious to me, these discussions really drive me nuts because it is so obvious- but then people always go back to "But how do you know it is true"? It is self-evident that it is true.

We are humans and everything we SEE, do, think, dream and believe is the WAY HUMANS SEE, DO, THINK, DREAM, AND BELIEVE

To believe otherwise implies that somehow someone else is not human!

There IS no "reality" outside of human reality- we do not have sonar or see gamma rays (except with instruments we make - but then we have made those instruments to "translate" gamma rays into "Human")

There are no facts- just human interpretations of what we experience. That's it! Nothing more!!

And yes experiencing "God" is one of those experiences billions share. Who am I to say that is not "real"??

[Ahab]

Reality exists whether or not we ever experience it.

Prove it.

How do you get outside what people have experienced to "reality"??

You have to be able to see what exists that someone else doesn't know about and then apply that back to yourself.

For example, suppose at some point later in time you have a son and you name him John, but as of now he hasn't been born. Here you are living your life, while other people live their life, in reality, and John doesn't know anything about that because all of that is outside of his experience. Does that fact that he doesn't know about it mean that reality doesn't exist? No. And what if you never have a son which you will name John, so that John will never exist. Will that change or alter or make any difference at all in reality? No. Whether or not John is ever born and thus is able to experience reality, reality still exists. Now suppose that you had never been born. Would that change or alter reality as it would have been then? No. It would still be reality whether or not you (or I) ever experienced it.

What "exists" that no one has ever experienced?

Nothing, because in reality God (our Father) and some other people have experienced everything there is to experience.

That doesn't mean reality wouldn't exist if nobody like us or of our kind of being had ever lived to experience it, though. Reality would have then just been something without us, so that instead of us being the highest form of life in all of existence some other kind of being would be and would have been God.