Confirmation through the spirit or feelings?

[mfbukowski]

Others have said I am very confident of my views- I suppose they are right.

I have been doubting and skeptical for 40 years in refining them and they definitely work for me.  It seems they work for some others as well.

[Ahab]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

But here's the problem - you don't get confirmation of "objective facts" through a subjective, internal-only experience.

Are you under the impression that you can get confirmation of "objective facts" somehow?

How would you do that?

Please explain to mski because he doesn't seem to think you can and I say the only way you can do it is through your own subjective experience when you encounter objective reality.

 

[Ahab]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

Here's what's going on when you pray - you're not sending out a broadcast signal to God and God is not sending a message back in return. Prayer is like meditation. You're gathering your thoughts, you might experience a sense of elevation and peace. You can perhaps come up with some good spiritual insights. But God is not literally broadcasting messages into your brain, unless God is intentionally trying to confuse us all with contradictory messages. 

What I believe about prayer is based on observation. God doesn't literally broadcast messages into our brains. If he did the collective results of revelation would show some convergence along a particular path, instead of diverging down a million different paths. 

Instead we get no convergence about objective things, like what is the one true church of God. We get some convergence about subjective things, like how to treat your neighbor (not total convergence, but some grouping). It seems to me that's the evolutionary purpose of spirituality - it leads us to be better versions of ourselves, but it can also be manipulated to divide us up into little tribes. 

What I believe about the nature of God is based on the first time I heard a Rabbi talk about God as existence itself. That hit me like a ton of bricks, and it's the only theology that makes sense to me personally. I don't confuse that with a discrete message from God telling me that God is existence. That's not what revelation is. Revelation is spiritual insight, and it's totally subjective/internal. 

You're speaking as if you have the right to speak for everybody, as if your own subjective reality experiences apply to their own subjective reality experiences, when in objective reality you are only projecting your own ideas onto them.

You don't have any real idea about what happens when I pray.  At most you only know what happens when you pray and it seems that you think that since that is what happens when you pray that it also must be what happens when I pray.  That everyone must experience the same things that you experience, if they experience it at all, and that it can be no other way.

Kinda funny, really. Or did I not understand you correctly?

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

Instead we get no convergence about objective things, like what is the one true church of God. We get some convergence about subjective things, like how to treat your neighbor (not total convergence, but some grouping). It seems to me that's the evolutionary purpose of spirituality - it leads us to be better versions of ourselves, but it can also be manipulated to divide us up into little tribes. 

What I believe about the nature of God is based on the first time I heard a Rabbi talk about God as existence itself. That hit me like a ton of bricks, and it's the only theology that makes sense to me personally. I don't confuse that with a discrete message from God telling me that God is existence. That's not what revelation is. Revelation is spiritual insight, and it's totally subjective/internal. 

How did the rabbi objectively prove that “God is Existence Itself?

How is “God literally broadcasts messages into your brain” any different from the subjective processes and dynamics by which you sense anyone or anything else?

Why is it you believe that convergence the aim, but more to the point, why does it matter to you whether it comes by way of an objective or subjective process?

[Ahab]

4 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Yes on one

No on two.  Truth does not exist exist at all independent of truth claims.  And in fact agnostics and atheists make the following points all the time.  Did you read the Rorty quote?

Virtually all contemporary Mormon philosophers subscribe to a philosophy called "phenomenology" which also requires the view that truth depends on interpretation of language.

There are no true chairs or tables or churches, there are only true or false beliefs.  Language cannot correspond to the world because it cannot be shown to correspond to it.  If truth exists independent of language it cannot be shown to be "true"- no definition of truth is possible.   I am not going to get into that with you but I will supply you with references if you like- here is one  https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-deflationary/

Hope you can follow this.  It debunks your common sense view.

Refute this, publish it, and get instant fame.

Saying essentially the same thing, 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correspondence_theory_of_truth#Objections

Correspondence. Okay.

Deflation. Eh, not so okay.

Words are always inadequate to describe reality.

4 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

If truth is in the world "as it is" outside perceptions and language- how do we get "outside" perceptions and language to verify truth?

Not outside, exactly. Just that sometimes perceptions and expressions of language often fail to convey everything there is to experience in reality.

4 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

We do not see "things as they are" we see through a glass darkly and cannot get to things as they are to compare them to words- and words cannot correspond to things as they are.

We see some of what is, in other words. To see all we must experience everything.

4 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Direct perception by the spirit of God- or for that matter the color "red" would be necessary to establish the truth of anything

Yes. In a sense that is relatively true.

4 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Imagine an argument between two blind people about whether or not the car is red or green and you will see the argument instantly hopefully.  Neither can get outside their blindness to verify the "world as it is"- they would have to rely on the descriptions of others- language- and what they say to decide if the correct color was red or green.  For them the truth of the issue is found in sentences because they cannot get outside their lack of ability to perceive

But it is not only to be found in sentences.  If the cars are real, then they are real cars and they really have what we refer to as color. 

4 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Likewise, we cannot speak of things as they are- we can only speak in language, and language is not "things as they are"

False to the first and true to the second.

4 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

"Truth" is a word which describes a sentence.  Words cannot correspond to things as they are.  In church I say "the church is true" all the time because we know that means essentially that "I have a testimony that the church teaches true principles".   We are speaking Mormonese and we know what that means

But it does not communicate to agnostics or atheists at all.

I get that, but agnostics and atheists are slow to perceive reality as it really is as it pertains to God.

4 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Sorry if that still does not communicate to you-  I will have nothing more I can say on this particular topic- I have exhausted my ways of saying it, with the articles, Rorty, and my own writing.

No on two.

Gotcha. Whatever works for you, bro.

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

So is the actual physical resurrection of Christ's body.

If we doubt that event why even bother with anything...

Does NOT doubting it make it more likely to have actually happened? Does believing make it more likely

It is the belief that it happened that gives us peace, not the unknowable reality.  John 3:16 says we must BELIEVE to be saved (from guilt) and that is certainly true.

If it happened or not it is the faith that it did that changes lives

Even the placebo effect heals in reality.

[snowflake]

On ‎4‎/‎4‎/‎2017 at 2:09 AM, mfbukowski said:

Exactly

How could he believe he received a revelation if he does not believe in the principle OF personal revelation?  There's a  central contradiction there.

Never said that, I said that I pray to God for wisdom, like James 1 says to do. Why do you consider your personal revelation superior to mine?

[snowflake]

On ‎4‎/‎4‎/‎2017 at 2:58 AM, mfbukowski said:

Unknowable- and that is precisely the problem with your "historical" approach

Without God verifying it, all we have are stories- yes from extra-biblical sources but that does not make any of them any more true than any other ancient legend.  The stories might just as well be about Apollo or Mithras.   We have a lot of historical sources for those stories as well.

Great, so history is unknowable.....unless God tells you the history and the history God tells you could be different than the history God tells me????

[snowflake]

19 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Truth cannot be out there- cannot exist independently of the human mind- because sentences cannot so exist, or be out there.  The world is out there, but descriptions of the world are not.  Only descriptions of the world can be true or false.  The world on its own- unaided by the describing activities of human beings- cannot.

Try to dispute this, please.

No one can.  

Truth cannot be out there..... or paraphrasing..... there is no such thing as truth.

Is that a true statement?

[hope_for_things]

17 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

God is inside me not outside me.  The kingdom of heaven is within

Meditation tells you nothing about science, I cannot comprehend how you think it should.

Why should you listen to some rabbi who knows no more than you do?

God does not send conflicting messages- the world does.  Conflicting messages are the matter unorganized we must organize into a world like unto the other worlds people have created for themselves as gods in embryo.

Some might seem God as their own unconscious but I see Him as an Other who teaches me, as you admit, "some good spiritual insights"

Why you would trust the philosophies of men above God within- your Best Self is incomprehensible to me, but thanks for the insight into another consciousness.

It is a rare opportunity to step into another's consciousness- thanks.   Your consciousness is about as far from mine as can be comprehended - yours is totally external.  You even see your consciousness projected onto external reality so that God is existence itself- the external it self

For you to learn about externals is to learn about God.

For me God is learning about myself.

Very interesting and thank you for the discussion.  I think it is clear we will never understand each other fully in this area. 

I'd like to thank you and Gray for sharing this discussion as its been helpful for me.  I have to admit that I find Gray's perspective easier to follow and process in my mind.  I don't believe Gray's explanation aligns 100% with my personal experience, but I think its closer to how I've experienced and interpreted things.  

MFB, I've been trying to understand your perspective for a while now, and you've taught me some good things, but for whatever reason on one hand I think I'm understanding what you're saying better, and then on the other hand I'm even more confused than before.  I'm chalking this up to two things, one is I think you're just smarter than me and I can't quite get my arms around your arguments.  Two is that your experience in life has been much different than mine, and the way I've interpreted my life experiences has been very different than you so its almost like you're speaking a different language than me.  I'll keep trying though, hoping to learn more with time and patience.  

Thanks to both of you.  

Edited April 5, 2017 by hope_for_things

[Ahab]

2 hours ago, snowflake said:

Truth cannot be out there..... or paraphrasing..... there is no such thing as truth.

Is that a true statement?

No.

[Ahab]

13 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

MFB, I've been trying to understand your perspective for a while now, and you've taught me some good things, but for whatever reason on one hand I think I'm understanding what you're saying better, and then on the other hand I'm even more confused than before.  I'm chalking this up to two things, one is I think you're just smarter than me and I can't quite get my arms around your arguments.  Two is that your experience in life has been much different than mine, and the way I've interpreted my life experiences has been very different than you so its almost like you're speaking a different language than me.  I'll keep trying though, hoping to learn more with time and patience.  

My best guess is that mski talks the way he does sometimes to try to reach atheists and agnostics on their own level, hoping they will see the errors in their own reasoning by thinking in those terms.

Either that or he is so immersed in that philosophy and sophistry that he can't stop thinking that way, himself.

Either way, sometimes people are just wrong and unable to see all the facets of truth.

[hope_for_things]

6 minutes ago, Ahab said:

My best guess is that mski talks the way he does sometimes to try to reach atheists and agnostics on their own level, hoping they will see the errors in their own reasoning by thinking in those terms.

Either that or he is so immersed in that philosophy and sophistry that he can't stop thinking that way, himself.

Either way, sometimes people are just wrong and unable to see all the facets of truth.

Sometimes I think of myself as agnostic, it depends on the day, but even on those agnostic days, I still have a hard time understanding MFB.  Its probably just me, who knows...

[Ahab]

7 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Sometimes I think of myself as agnostic, it depends on the day, but even on those agnostic days, I still have a hard time understanding MFB.  Its probably just me, who knows...

Maybe you're just not agnostic enough.

[hope_for_things]

3 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Maybe you're just not agnostic enough.

  I'll try harder!  

[Gray]

19 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

So is the actual physical resurrection of Christ's body.

If we doubt that event why even bother with anything...

We should doubt that the event happened in any literal sense. Doubt everything, see what's left standing in the end. That's a marvelous way to start a fruitful spiritual quest. 

[JLHPROF]

5 minutes ago, Gray said:

We should doubt that the event happened in any literal sense. Doubt everything, see what's left standing in the end. That's a marvelous way to start a fruitful spiritual quest.

Except that's the exact opposite of everything God and Christ ever said on the matter.

[Ahab]

10 minutes ago, Gray said:

We should doubt that the event happened in any literal sense. Doubt everything, see what's left standing in the end. That's a marvelous way to start a fruitful spiritual quest. 

I can be a pretty good doubter when I want to be.  So much so that I could continually doubt everything without ever being sure of anything as long as I continued to doubt any and even every source of assurance.

Couldn't you do that, too?

Then all we would have is doubt.

Do you want to see how much fun that would be?  We could do a little experiment to show how far we could carry that and keep that up. 

I will begin by doubting everything you say from now on.

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, snowflake said:

Never said that, I said that I pray to God for wisdom, like James 1 says to do. Why do you consider your personal revelation superior to mine?

I don't.

I think there are many paths to God.

Thanks for admitting that personal revelation is an important path to wisdom. And of course wisdom includes finding out the best path for oneself.

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, snowflake said:

Great, so history is unknowable.....unless God tells you the history and the history God tells you could be different than the history God tells me????

No history is irrelevant to spirituality. You could have been an eyewitness to the historical event of Jesus crucifixion and still not see him as your savior. In fact today you see Jesus as your savior without being a witness to history. So the history is also Irrelevant in your life.

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I'd like to thank you and Gray for sharing this discussion as its been helpful for me.  I have to admit that I find Gray's perspective easier to follow and process in my mind.  I don't believe Gray's explanation aligns 100% with my personal experience, but I think its closer to how I've experienced and interpreted things.  

MFB, I've been trying to understand your perspective for a while now, and you've taught me some good things, but for whatever reason on one hand I think I'm understanding what you're saying better, and then on the other hand I'm even more confused than before.  I'm chalking this up to two things, one is I think you're just smarter than me and I can't quite get my arms around your arguments.  Two is that your experience in life has been much different than mine, and the way I've interpreted my life experiences has been very different than you so its almost like you're speaking a different language than me.  I'll keep trying though, hoping to learn more with time and patience.  

Thanks to both of you.  

 If you understand rorty and don't understand me I'm in trouble. If you don't understand both of us I'm okay with it.

Rorty can also be hard to understand.

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, snowflake said:

Truth cannot be out there..... or paraphrasing..... there is no such thing as truth.

Is that a true statement?

Define truth. That's the problem. Certainly truth is not a thing so there is no such thing as truth.

Edited April 5, 2017 by mfbukowski

[Ahab]

2 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

 If you understand rorty and don't understand me I'm in trouble. If you don't understand both of us I'm okay with it.

Rorty can also be hard to understand.

It's not just about understanding. It is also about whether or not to agree.

I think I understand both of you and disagree with both of you, in part. But then again I also agree with some of what you two are saying.

And I am okay with that.

[Ahab]

3 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Define truth. That's the problem. Certainly truth is not a thing so there is no such thing as truth.

Truth is what really is or was or will be.

Either 1 or 2 or all 3 of those things in reality.

I am truth, or a part of what is true,  and if I were not then I would not be.

[hope_for_things]

9 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

 If you understand rorty and don't understand me I'm in trouble. If you don't understand both of us I'm okay with it.

Rorty can also be hard to understand.

Sometimes I think I understand something but then upon further inquiry its obvious I don't grasp it.  I'll gauge my understanding for either of you at about 20-30%.