mfbukowski Posted April 25, 2014 Posted April 25, 2014 Uh huh. Philosophers have written millions of pages and you got it in one paragraph.
mfbukowski Posted April 25, 2014 Posted April 25, 2014 (edited) We don't need to get into semantics....That's all there is. It's a description of experience. It's the metaphysics of mysticism. Edited April 25, 2014 by mfbukowski
brainburn Posted April 25, 2014 Author Posted April 25, 2014 That's all there is. It's a description of experience. It's the metaphysics of mysticism.So, to be clear, what sounds like an objective statement of fact, backed up with logic and evidence, is actually nothing more than your pragmatic taste?You can't actually prove that all communication with God doesn't contain any representations or symbols.... So, that means you can't prove a supernatural correspondence theory is impossible? You simply "feel you know" it is impossible because it "works"... That's fine. It's progress for our discussion. But raises an interesting question:What was the experience that caused you to "feel you know" that everyone else's communication with God doesn't contain any representations or symbols?
brainburn Posted April 25, 2014 Author Posted April 25, 2014 (edited) The Bible already gives you the solution. Why isn't it enough? God revealed Himself in Christ who died and came back to life, which is supported by historical and logical data. Are you saying that doesn't make the cut?I should have phrased it differently. The issue is that because there are too many things that "make the cut", we can't tell what really does. But there are also plenty of things that just don't hold water.But we can get into that if you could tell me at least what kind of argument you're suggesting as enough to compel me?The bigger question is if you're willing to submit to a faith system that you don't immediately understand or agree with. If all this 'looking for a solution' is you just demanding God and faith must fit within your narrow definition of 'making the cut,' then you'll never find anything beyond yourself. You've wrote many posts asking others how they can trust in spiritual experiences without explaining why those experiences are reliable. But you're making the same mistake. You're putting so much faith in your logic and judgment without explaining why human logic and judgment is reliable.I don't pretend to know whether our judgement is reliable to any degree beyond what's already self-evident. Are you one of those believers who'd wouldn't trust simple logical truths like "A is A and not B" if God didn't tell you? Edited April 25, 2014 by brainburn
brainburn Posted April 25, 2014 Author Posted April 25, 2014 (edited) Mfbukowski, A quote from your blog:"There is definitely something "out there" - no sane person doubts it. But what it "really is" we will never know, so it doesn't much matter."Your statement, "we will NEVER know".... Again, it sounds like a statement designed to express that this is a demonstrable fact... But according to my understanding of your philosophy, it must simply be supported by your pragmatic taste? This is fundamentally what I am questioning. If a supernatural correspondence is possible, then your statement that we will never know what is really "out there" is based on the yet-to-be-supported denial of the legitimate possibility that a representation of reality can be supernaturally confirmed.Do you support this denial with an experience? Edited April 25, 2014 by brainburn
brainburn Posted April 25, 2014 Author Posted April 25, 2014 (edited) I should let you know, too. If I successfully convinced you, you'd still be a pragmatic Mormon. You'd simply accept that some people might really know what is "out there". Whether anyone has proven this is another discussion. Edited April 25, 2014 by brainburn
mfbukowski Posted April 25, 2014 Posted April 25, 2014 So, to be clear, what sounds like an objective statement of fact, backed up with logic and evidence, is actually nothing more than your pragmatic taste?You can't actually prove that all communication with God doesn't contain any representations or symbols.... So, that means you can't prove a supernatural correspondence theory is impossible? You simply "feel you know" it is impossible because it "works"... That's fine. It's progress for our discussion. But raises an interesting question:What was the experience that caused you to "feel you know" that everyone else's communication with God doesn't contain any representations or symbols?Yep, just like everything else. There are no facts, only interpretations. Never again. Bye. This has been a total waste. You have not comprehended one word.
brainburn Posted April 25, 2014 Author Posted April 25, 2014 Yep, just like everything else. There are no facts, only interpretations. Never again. Bye. This has been a total waste. You have not comprehended one word.That's a bit harsh, but I did comprehend just about everything you said... You just confirmed so yourself in the first word of this post. That you'd make such a blanket statement about my comprehension just questions your own ;] I don't mean to get into a personal back and forth, but I'll reserve the right to protect my dignity as long as I'm not breaking any forum rules. I've put a great amount of effort into comprehending what you mean... But it's pretty difficult when we don't work together :/Why are you refusing to explain what experience caused you to "feel you know" that God never communicates through representations or symbols?
brainburn Posted April 25, 2014 Author Posted April 25, 2014 Mfbukowski, A quote from your blog:"There is definitely something "out there" - no sane person doubts it. But what it "really is" we will never know, so it doesn't much matter."Your statement, "we will NEVER know".... Again, it sounds like a statement designed to express that this is a demonstrable fact... But according to my understanding of your philosophy, it must simply be supported by your pragmatic taste? This is fundamentally what I am questioning. If a supernatural correspondence is possible, then your statement that we will never know what is really "out there" is based on the yet-to-be-supported denial of the legitimate possibility that a representation of reality can be supernaturally confirmed.Do you support this denial with an experience?I think this post demonstrates that I comprehend your position.
brainburn Posted April 25, 2014 Author Posted April 25, 2014 The BOM is a representation of reality and many people experience the Holy Spirit confirming it corresponds to what was and will be "out there". If you reject this is possible based on a feeling you get from an experience, what could that experience possibly have been that you'd be so certain it wasn't misinterpreted?
Akboy Posted April 25, 2014 Posted April 25, 2014 I should have phrased it differently. The issue is that because there are too many things that "make the cut", we can't tell what really does. But there are also plenty of things that just don't hold water.Could you give a few brief examples of some of the many things that "make the cut"? I don't pretend to know whether our judgement is reliable to any degree beyond what's already self-evident.What do you mean by "self-evident"? Are you one of those believers who'd wouldn't trust simple logical truths like "A is A and not B" if God didn't tell you?It would help if you could give an example of a logical truth. I have no problem with logic. I've brought up logic like 'If A = B and B = C, then A must = C' is philosophical discussions. At the same time, human logic has it's limit. God has said the wisdom of the world is foolishness to God. So using logic is fine, but if you're trying to "prove" which faith is right, then you're probably getting into foolish "wisdom." Do you see how logic-based philosophers can fall into the same circular reasoning pattern you're pointing out in experience-based philosophers?
Ahab Posted April 25, 2014 Posted April 25, 2014 And we were just getting into the real discussion... Darn. I'll be mourning this loss of great conversation for a long time.You could pick it up with me but it wouldn't last very long because I already understand what you were trying to explain to mski, and I think it was fun for you because you really like to explain things.One thing you didn't seem to pick up on though was the idea mski had in mind when saying there is no such thing as supernatural, or at least not as mski understands what supernatural means, because he (and I too) consider us to be God, or in other words the same kind of being as God, and there is no such thing as something above (super or superseding) us, as many suppose God is.I'm glad you got to have at least a little bit of fun with mski while it lasted.
Ahab Posted April 25, 2014 Posted April 25, 2014 That's why you have to take yourself out of it. Just focus on what God revealed in the Bible.Rom. 1017 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.Why are you trying to find faith in spiritual experiences when you can see how deceptive and unreliable they can be? Faith comes from God and His word, not spiritual experiences.God speaking to us is a spiritual experience.It's just not supernatural (to us) because our spirit is the same kind of spirit as the spirit of God.
mfbukowski Posted April 25, 2014 Posted April 25, 2014 (edited) .....nevermind Edited April 25, 2014 by mfbukowski
mfbukowski Posted April 25, 2014 Posted April 25, 2014 You could pick it up with me but it wouldn't last very long because I already understand what you were trying to explain to mski, and I think it was fun for you because you really like to explain things.One thing you didn't seem to pick up on though was the idea mski had in mind when saying there is no such thing as supernatural, or at least not as mski understands what supernatural means, because he (and I too) consider us to be God, or in other words the same kind of being as God, and there is no such thing as something above (super or superseding) us, as many suppose God is.I'm glad you got to have at least a little bit of fun with mski while it lasted.Well I actually agreed with you up til that last line. Glad to know others see it as I do, even if it's YOU! (love ya bro!- you get me mad but that's what brothers are for!)
Ahab Posted April 25, 2014 Posted April 25, 2014 Well I actually agreed with you up til that last line. Glad to know others see it as I do, even if it's YOU! (love ya bro!- you get me mad but that's what brothers are for!)Heh, no, I don't get mad at you. A little exasperated with you sometimes when we don't understand each other but that's directed more at myself for feeling like I can't make my thoughts clear enough for you to understand what I mean.I wonder what made you think I got mad at you, when that was actually contrary to objective reality.
mfbukowski Posted April 25, 2014 Posted April 25, 2014 (edited) Heh, no, I don't get mad at you. A little exasperated with you sometimes when we don't understand each other but that's directed more at myself for feeling like I can't make my thoughts clear enough for you to understand what I mean.I wonder what made you think I got mad at you, when that was actually contrary to objective reality.LOL But it bugs me too that I can't say the words I need to to get good communication going, so we're on the same page there! Edited: oops- nevermind- long hard day and I am tired Edited April 25, 2014 by mfbukowski
brainburn Posted April 26, 2014 Author Posted April 26, 2014 LOL But it bugs me too that I can't say the words I need to to get good communication going, so we're on the same page there!:/ I could have had this exact conversation with you and I would have meant every word. You just have to have a little bit more faith in me, man :]
brainburn Posted April 26, 2014 Author Posted April 26, 2014 (edited) You could pick it up with me but it wouldn't last very long because I already understand what you were trying to explain to mski, and I think it was fun for you because you really like to explain things.I do like explaining things. But we're all here because it suits us, I suppose. I'm really getting a lot out of these conversations. It's helping me grow. One thing you didn't seem to pick up on though was the idea mski had in mind when saying there is no such thing as supernatural, or at least not as mski understands what supernatural means, because he (and I too) consider us to be God, or in other words the same kind of being as God, and there is no such thing as something above (super or superseding) us, as many suppose God is.I see your concern, but I did try to pick up on it. I think I asked him to explain it twice. This kind of idea needs a bit more support because I don't understand why the distinction needs to be made. When I say "supernatural", I don't necessarily need to separate the supernatural from the natural in substance, only in function. Also, separate in that we know natural things exist and supernatural things are simply possible. They could be two points on the same spectrum, but the fact that one is fundamentally mysterious and the other not so much is what makes a supernatural correspondence theory possible. But if you'd like to talk! I'd be really interested in a explanation as to what convinces you there is nothing supernatural. I would venture a guess that you don't mean this in an objective sense, even though you phrase it absolutely as if you mean to say that anything supernatural is impossible? I could be wrong, but if you don't mean to say there is objectively nothing supernatural, it's a bit difficult to tell what you mean. I'm glad you got to have at least a little bit of fun with mski while it lasted.I'm really grateful. Maybe if we talk he could see that I'm actually not that difficult to talk to :] Edited April 26, 2014 by brainburn
mfbukowski Posted April 26, 2014 Posted April 26, 2014 I do like explaining things. But we're all here because it suits us, I suppose. I'm really getting a lot out of these conversations. It's helping me grow. I see your concern, but I did try to pick up on it. I think I asked him to explain it twice. This kind of idea needs a bit more support because I don't understand why the distinction needs to be made. When I say "supernatural", I don't necessarily need to separate the supernatural from the natural in substance, only in function. Also, separate in that we know natural things exist and supernatural things are simply possible. They could be two points on the same spectrum, but the fact that one is fundamentally mysterious and the other not so much is what makes a supernatural correspondence theory possible. But if you'd like to talk! I'd be really interested in a explanation as to what convinces you there is nothing supernatural. I would venture a guess that you don't mean this in an objective sense, even though you phrase it absolutely as if you mean to say that anything supernatural is impossible? I could be wrong, but if you don't mean to say there is objectively nothing supernatural, it's a bit difficult to tell what you mean. I'm really grateful. Maybe if we talk he could see that I'm actually not that difficult to talk to :]I am sure you two will have a splendid time together. You kind of fit together.
brainburn Posted April 27, 2014 Author Posted April 27, 2014 I am sure you two will have a splendid time together. You kind of fit together.Fit together? What makes you say that?
thesometimesaint Posted April 27, 2014 Posted April 27, 2014 brainburn: Supernatural just means pertaining to God/
brainburn Posted April 29, 2014 Author Posted April 29, 2014 brainburn:Supernatural just means pertaining to God/I use it to mean fundamentally mysterious.So, in a very reasonable sense I think my philosophy of the supernatural is a sort of inversion of mfbukowski's:Nothing is simply natural. Everything is supernatural and some of those things behave naturally.
brainburn Posted April 29, 2014 Author Posted April 29, 2014 I do like explaining things. But we're all here because it suits us, I suppose. I'm really getting a lot out of these conversations. It's helping me grow.I see your concern, but I did try to pick up on it. I think I asked him to explain it twice. This kind of idea needs a bit more support because I don't understand why the distinction needs to be made. When I say "supernatural", I don't necessarily need to separate the supernatural from the natural in substance, only in function. Also, separate in that we know natural things exist and supernatural things are simply possible. They could be two points on the same spectrum, but the fact that one is fundamentally mysterious and the other not so much is what makes a supernatural correspondence theory possible.But if you'd like to talk! I'd be really interested in a explanation as to what convinces you there is nothing supernatural. I would venture a guess that you don't mean this in an objective sense, even though you phrase it absolutely as if you mean to say that anything supernatural is impossible? I could be wrong, but if you don't mean to say there is objectively nothing supernatural, it's a bit difficult to tell what you mean or exactly how it's relevant to my arguments.I'm really grateful. Maybe if we talk he could see that I'm actually not that difficult to talk to :]
thesometimesaint Posted April 29, 2014 Posted April 29, 2014 I use it to mean fundamentally mysterious.So, in a very reasonable sense I think my philosophy of the supernatural is a sort of inversion of mfbukowski's:Nothing is simply natural. Everything is supernatural and some of those things behave naturally. This is life eternal that you may know the one true God and the Christ whom he hath sent. so not so mysterious. It might be an inversion but it is closer my thinking. In the sciences we can only deal with the natural. By their works ye shall know them.
Recommended Posts