Searching for GOD...

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I do. I know when I am guessing and when i've experienced something and I guess that is true for most people.

You don’t. No-one doubts that you had an “experience” of some kind. The guessing bit though is the explanatory causal narrative you attach to it.

Your use of the word guess..... given the context and the personnel who use it... are you using the term as a backhanded Jibe? Either that or you are making definitional and category errors.

Neither. Your guess “God” is epistemically identical to my guess “leprechauns”. Until you can finally propose a method qualitatively to distinguish one from the other, there it will remain.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I don't think you can extrapolate from your personal experience into something that is 'objectively' true for all.  Even within the realms of religious experience, there is diversity, not unanimity, as William James shows.

Religion is intersubjective. Also the discovery of God surely modifies one's world view on the nature of everything in that the guessing at naturalism is replaced by the experience of God.

I tend to think it is antitheists who choose when it is expedient to see unanimity in religion and when to exploit diversity for their own ends.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Religion is intersubjective.

Religions (plural) (and their various sub-groupings) are "intersubjective, and so what?

Also the discovery of God surely modifies one's world view on the nature of everything in that the guessing at naturalism is replaced by the experience of God.

Fallacy of reification. What "discovery of God"? It's the supposed discovery that's the guess remember?

I tend to think it is antitheists who choose when it is expedient to see unanimity in religion and when to exploit diversity for their own ends.

No doubt you do, however daft the thought.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

You don’t. No-one doubts that you had an “experience” of some kind. The guessing bit though is the explanatory causal narrative you attach to it.

Neither. Your guess “God” is epistemically identical to my guess “leprechauns”. Until you can finally propose a method qualitatively to distinguish one from the other, there it will remain.

Leprechauns are small irish gentlemen and that....as always....about covers it.

[SusanDoris]

I read about Pope Francis's views on Hell last night; what he says is in keeping with most current Christian thought.

It shows that belief is not static. We learn new things all the time. Only diehard traditionalists are afraid to move forward.

That is interesting. Hav you 'moved forward'? Can you say from what to what?

[torridon]

Religion is intersubjective. Also the discovery of God surely modifies one's world view on the nature of everything in that the guessing at naturalism is replaced by the experience of God.

It is true for everyone, that their 'world view' is informed by their personal experience. But we still can listen to the accounts of people with different experience and try to form a de-personalised account on the nature of things that values the experience of all equally. People who make grand claims of truth based on their personal experience are overvaluing their own experience whilst undervaluing the testimony of others whose experience does not chime so well.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Religions (plural) (and their various sub-groupings) are "intersubjective, and so what?

Fallacy of reification.

How so?

[ippy]

I read about Pope Francis's views on Hell last night; what he says is in keeping with most current Christian thought.

It shows that belief is not static. We learn new things all the time. Only diehard traditionalists are afraid to move forward.

Coo-wee wow, current Christian thought, amazing! Fair takes your breath away the staggering rapidity of thought involved with such a supercharged program, wow! again.

Regards ippy

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Leprechauns are small irish gentlemen and that....as always....about covers it.

Except of course that's entirely irrelevant to the analogy for reasons that have been explained to you countless times that you, apparently wilfully, ignore. (Wearily and yet again)... irrespective of the features and characteristics of the object, if the argument works equally for "God" and for leprechauns then it's probably a bad argument.

Write that down 100 times until it finally sinks in.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

How so?

"Also the discovery of God..."

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

"Also the discovery of God..."

And that is reification how?

[Stranger]

Religion is intersubjective.

Religion may be but it's various and contradictory beliefs (including the existence of any gods) are not intersubjectively verifiable.

Also the discovery of God surely modifies one's world view on the nature of everything in that the guessing at naturalism is replaced by the experience of God.

Two fallacies for the price of one: straw man and begging the question.

[ippy]

Vlad,

Except of course that's entirely irrelevant to the analogy for reasons that have been explained to you countless times that you, apparently wilfully, ignore. (Wearily and yet again)... irrespective of the features and characteristics of the object, if the argument works equally for "God" and for leprechauns then it's probably a bad argument.

Write that down 100 times until it finally sinks in.

I think the word you're looking for is impenetrable, Blue.

Regards ippy

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

And that is reification how?

It’s reification because it just concretises as a fact the very subject whose epistemic status is under discussion. It’s also begging the question by the way.

[bluehillside Retd.]

ipster,

I think the word you're looking for is impenetrable, Blue.

Actually I think it's "dishonest", but you could be right.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

It’s reification because it just concretises as a fact the very subject whose epistemic status is under discussion. It’s also begging the question by the way.

Sorry that's just words thrown about shamanically.
You are saying that experience of God is a guess. On what grounds? You seem to be assuming that it is. Please demonstrate.

God is never put forward as a physical thing so I don't know what you mean by concretisation.

I think you've probably succesfully mired the conversation...though why you would possibly want to do that I can't possibly imagine ha ha.

You need to therefore justify why you think experiencing God is guessing.

Are you saying that I could have experienced something other than God?
I apply language frameworks and the only satisfactory one is that which I would say I was gifted understanding of.

I think you are guessing at truth being only mundane experiences and quotidien explanations being available.........Am I right?

[SusanDoris]

I think the word you're looking for is impenetrable, Blue.

Regards ippy

We could add 'impervious' to that, I think!

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Sorry that's just words thrown about shamanically.

You are saying that experience of God is a guess.

To be clear, I’m saying that the fact of an “experience” isn’t a guess, but the attaching to it of “God” as its explanatory cause is.

On what grounds? You seem to be assuming that it is. Please demonstrate.

On the ground that it’s character is precisely that of a guess – it’s a statement of (supposed) fact with no underlying logic or evidence to support it. That’s what “guess” means.   

God is never put forward as a physical thing so I don't know what you mean by concretisation.

Clearly. “Concretisation” in this case just means, “making real”. If the conversation is about why you think there’s a “god” at all, you cannot just include, “but the discovery of God….” as if any such thing had already been established.   

I think you've probably successfully mired the conversation...though why you would possibly want to do that I can't possibly imagine ha ha.

“Mired” in what? You don’t understand the word.

You need to therefore justify why you think experiencing God is guessing.

I already have. 

Are you saying that I could have experienced something other than God?

Of course you could. There are lots of other possible explanations, albeit presumably ones you’d find less solipsistically thrilling.

I apply language frameworks and the only satisfactory one is that which I would say I was gifted understanding of.

Nope, no idea. What do you think you’re even trying to say here?

I think you are guessing at truth being only mundane experiences and quotidien explanations being available.........Am I right?

Never so far, no. What I’m actually doing is reasoning that the assertion “god” as a causal explanation is no less a guess that “leprechauns” would be.

Why is this difficult for you to grasp?

[ippy]

Sorry that's just words thrown about shamanically.
You are saying that experience of God is a guess. On what grounds? You seem to be assuming that it is. Please demonstrate.

God is never put forward as a physical thing so I don't know what you mean by concretisation.

I think you've probably succesfully mired the conversation...though why you would possibly want to do that I can't possibly imagine ha ha.

You need to therefore justify why you think experiencing God is guessing.

Are you saying that I could have experienced something other than God?
I apply language frameworks and the only satisfactory one is that which I would say I was gifted understanding of.

I think you are guessing at truth being only mundane experiences and quotidien explanations being available.........Am I right?

The well stirred word soup stage of another one of Vlad's postings, I can't be bothered with it, all he does is to become more and more obtuse using words he thinks he understands.

I have to say though, the way Vlad uses words does impress!

Regards ippy

[Stranger]

You are saying that experience of God is a guess. On what grounds?

...

You need to therefore justify why you think experiencing God is guessing.

Question begging again.

You had an experience that you interpreted as an encounter with an externally real 'god' - it's the interpretation that can't be distinguished from a guess - no matter how much it personally convinced you.

We can see that taking all such claims as true leads to contradictory conclusions - so we know that, as a method for deciding truth, taking people's word about an interpretation of a religious experience doesn't reliably work.

What's so hard?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Question begging again.

You had an experience that you interpreted as an encounter with an externally real 'god' - it's the interpretation that can't be distinguished from a guess -

Please demonstrate by all means.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Please demonstrate by all means.

It's not distinguishable from a guess because you've offered nothing to distinguish it from a guess.

This burden of proof thing always has confused you hasn't it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

It's not distinguishable from a guess because you've offered nothing to distinguish it from a guess.

This burden of proof thing always has confused you hasn't it.

No, if you are saying that my interpretation is indistinguishable from a guess then it's jolly well down to you to back up that positive assertion.

Come on then hotshot.

[Enki]

There is another way of looking at your questions which are inevitably based upon subject 'I' and relationship with object 'God', an object which appears to be largely undefined, and this is the way of the mystic in most religions (and I would include Jesus as a Judaic mystic).  The way of the mystic tends to be about transcending the subject/object based mental state which is driving this topic's discussion.  What arises cannot be described in language suitable for logical analysis and so an approximating analogical language is used to try to convey it to others.  Words like 'love' take on the sense of 'one-ness' or union rather than the two-ness of subject/object, soul/God.  There is no real way of communication but there are a variety of methods which can be used to invoke or evoke it.  The main obstacle is the ego/self which has its own agenda for self preservation.

Interesting response, Ekim.

I don't doubt that there are other ways that you can look at these things, but I was specifically responding to Sots's question on whether you can have objective evidence that your partner(who clearly exists, and can be intersubjectively verified) loves you, and then extending this to the idea of a relationship with God, who, Sots suggested, clearly exists For Alan(see post 27656), although His existence cannot be intersubjectively verified.

I have no problem with seeing a relationship with a god in an entirely different way, if that is what one chooses to do. However, a mystical approach cannot possibly verify, in any meaningful way(apart from for the participant) the actual existence of said god. Indeed, if I follow you correctly, this would not even be the point of the exercise, as the 'love' that is so invoked seems to me to emanate purely from the individual participant concerned.

[Stranger]

Please demonstrate by all means.

The explanation is in the rest of my post.

And it's up to you (burden of proof) to provide the justification if you want others to take your interpretation of your internal experience seriously as an encounter with an objectively real god (and hence reject many other people's religious experiences).

You would also need to explain why you don't take everybody else's interpretations of their own experiences seriously. In particular, those who have believed in your god and then reinterpreted the experiences and those who are equally convinced about other gods. It would also be interesting to know if you believe in alien abductions, ghosts, and other interpretations of experience than many have reported, and if not, why not, and why you think anybody should take your experience and its interpretation more seriously...