resolving god
resolving god
"Is there a god?" may seem to be a metaphysical question but it can only be answered epistemologically. Whether there is a god is of little interest when the ability to prove it is non-existent.
Re: resolving god
A question probing into the ''WHAT IS'' that self-evidently IS without doubt or error, is part of the same whole mystery that is unknowable.
That's a nondual answer to a dualistic question.
.
Re: resolving god
well isn't knowledge or knowing a result of experience? is a revelation of significance a experience? one must experience the presence of God to know God or that there is a God and that could only be achieved with a living God, correct?
so genuine Christians have been proclaiming that experience (again genuine) for almost a couple a thousand years, when they declare repent and call upon the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. (you brought it up)
fyi on that though, He see your heart like you see some ones face, there's no hiding anything.
anyway one can experience God and therefore know God.
also the bible is all about a people's experience with the Living God.
one should understand He is a Living God therefore can chose to reveal Himself to whom ever He pleases, when He pleases.
Re: resolving god
Confusing the world of logic with the real world is a recurring philosophical idiocy.
The notion of "proof" is undefined/unspecified outside of logic! Proof is just syntactic/grammatical correctness.
It's about the structure, not the content of arguments. Nothing more, nothing less.
You can no more "prove" God than you can "prove" Gravity.
Asking people to "prove" stuff is nothing but a social experiment which tests whether people are stupid and willing to jump as high as you want them to jump.
Re: resolving god
>well isn't knowledge or knowing a result of experience? is a revelation of significance a experience? one must experience the presence of God to know God or that there is a God and that could only be achieved with a living God, correct?
All experiences are real but not necessarily Of something real. To be externally meaningful the idea must be externally validated. To say that one has experienced god coveys no information about reality.
Many people have experienced god for 15 minutes with DMT. Where's the validation of that god out here in reality? If one defers validation to faith, they're epistemologically groundless.
All experiences are real but not necessarily Of something real. To be externally meaningful the idea must be externally validated. To say that one has experienced god coveys no information about reality.
Many people have experienced god for 15 minutes with DMT. Where's the validation of that god out here in reality? If one defers validation to faith, they're epistemologically groundless.
Re: resolving god
That's not how science works...
Many people claim to have experienced hallucinations on DMT. Where is the evidence/validation "out here" that it actually happened?
Oh, eh!
Re: resolving god
[quote=Skepdick post_id=502686 time=1615910126 user_id=17350]
[quote=Advocate post_id=502422 time=1615813260 user_id=15238]
"Is there a god?" may seem to be a metaphysical question but it can only be answered epistemologically. Whether there is a god is of little interest when the ability to prove it is non-existent.
[/quote]
Confusing the world of logic with the real world is a recurring philosophical idiocy.
The notion of "proof" is undefined/unspecified outside of logic! Proof is [b]just[/b] syntactic/grammatical correctness.
It's about the structure, not the content of arguments. Nothing more, nothing less.
You can no more "prove" God than you can "prove" Gravity.
Asking people to "prove" stuff is nothing but a social experiment which tests whether people are stupid and willing to jump as high as you want them to jump.
[/quote]
Proof can mean any number of things, like all the ordinary ones, and my contention will still hold true. Set proof as anything that can be externally validated and god cannot be proven. You're imagining my argument is flawed because it is not exhaustive, again. I need not suffer the accusation of insufficiency based on non-standard, exceptionally precise versions of the idea of proof that are not directly accounted for. In other words, i dismiss your disagreement as both irrelevant and made in bad faith.
[quote=Advocate post_id=502422 time=1615813260 user_id=15238]
"Is there a god?" may seem to be a metaphysical question but it can only be answered epistemologically. Whether there is a god is of little interest when the ability to prove it is non-existent.
[/quote]
Confusing the world of logic with the real world is a recurring philosophical idiocy.
The notion of "proof" is undefined/unspecified outside of logic! Proof is [b]just[/b] syntactic/grammatical correctness.
It's about the structure, not the content of arguments. Nothing more, nothing less.
You can no more "prove" God than you can "prove" Gravity.
Asking people to "prove" stuff is nothing but a social experiment which tests whether people are stupid and willing to jump as high as you want them to jump.
[/quote]
Proof can mean any number of things, like all the ordinary ones, and my contention will still hold true. Set proof as anything that can be externally validated and god cannot be proven. You're imagining my argument is flawed because it is not exhaustive, again. I need not suffer the accusation of insufficiency based on non-standard, exceptionally precise versions of the idea of proof that are not directly accounted for. In other words, i dismiss your disagreement as both irrelevant and made in bad faith.
Re: resolving god
The same goes with Gravity.
I dismiss your dismissal as uncharitable.Advocate wrote: ↑Tue Mar 16, 2021 5:18 pm You're imagining my argument is flawed because it is not exhaustive, again. I need not suffer the accusation of insufficiency based on non-standard, exceptionally precise versions of the idea of proof that are not directly accounted for. In other words, i dismiss your disagreement as both irrelevant and made in bad faith.
Until you "prove" Gravity according to the same standard of "proof" you expect for God.
Re: resolving god
[quote=Skepdick post_id=502692 time=1615911394 user_id=17350]
[quote=Advocate post_id=502688 time=1615911183 user_id=15238]
Many people have experienced god for 15 minutes with DMT. Where's the validation of that god out here in reality? If one defers validation to faith, they're epistemologically groundless.
[/quote]
That's not how science works...
Many people claim to have experienced hallucinations on DMT. Where is the evidence/validation "out here" that it actually happened?
Oh, eh!
[/quote]
Validation by anecdote is trust, not evidence. Hallucinations occur inside so there's no call for external validation, but it could be if you were on an MRI.
All of which is completely irrelevan to the point of whether god can be validated. If you define god as only needing to have internal existence to be "real" that's obviously not at all what i am talking about.
The fact remains that to be externally useful an idea must be externally validated. Anyone can say something is true, with or without an accurate communication motive. Believing they have no reason to lie is external validation. Believing many people believing the same thing makes it more likely to be true is external validation, but those kinds of evidence can only themselves be believed for internal reasons based on ones own particular perspective and reasoning. I do not have reason to believe any possible evidence could outweigh the fact that science continuously discovers new casual chains, so you cannot provide evidence that i can accept, no matter how strong you believe yours to be.
External validation is absolutely mundane for actually real things.
[quote=Advocate post_id=502688 time=1615911183 user_id=15238]
Many people have experienced god for 15 minutes with DMT. Where's the validation of that god out here in reality? If one defers validation to faith, they're epistemologically groundless.
[/quote]
That's not how science works...
Many people claim to have experienced hallucinations on DMT. Where is the evidence/validation "out here" that it actually happened?
Oh, eh!
[/quote]
Validation by anecdote is trust, not evidence. Hallucinations occur inside so there's no call for external validation, but it could be if you were on an MRI.
All of which is completely irrelevan to the point of whether god can be validated. If you define god as only needing to have internal existence to be "real" that's obviously not at all what i am talking about.
The fact remains that to be externally useful an idea must be externally validated. Anyone can say something is true, with or without an accurate communication motive. Believing they have no reason to lie is external validation. Believing many people believing the same thing makes it more likely to be true is external validation, but those kinds of evidence can only themselves be believed for internal reasons based on ones own particular perspective and reasoning. I do not have reason to believe any possible evidence could outweigh the fact that science continuously discovers new casual chains, so you cannot provide evidence that i can accept, no matter how strong you believe yours to be.
External validation is absolutely mundane for actually real things.
Re: resolving god
You'll hate to learn THAT placebos are scientifically and medically valid to be effective.
Even though there's no external validation (or reason) for them to actually work.
If God is a placebo, and the placebo has a discernable effect in a randomised control trial - that is sufficient scientific evidence for the existence of God.
Re: resolving god
[quote=Skepdick post_id=502702 time=1615913004 user_id=17350]
[quote=Advocate post_id=502698 time=1615912668 user_id=15238]
Validation by anecdote is trust, not evidence. Hallucinations occur inside so there's no call for external validation, but it could be if you were on an MRI.
[/quote]
You'll hate to learn THAT placebos are scientifically and medically valid to be effective.
Even though there's no external validation (or reason) for them to actually work.
[quote=Advocate post_id=502698 time=1615912668 user_id=15238]
All of which is completely irrelevan to the point of whether god can be validated. If you define god as only needing to have internal existence to be "real" that's obviously not at all what i am talking about.
[/quote]
If God is a placebo, and the placebo has a discernable effect in a randomised control trial - that is sufficient scientific evidence for the existence of God.
[/quote]
If someone says they've experienced x, there are three options; they're mistaken, they're lying, or they're right. None of those options can be known externally without external evidence.
A placebo is an external thing in the first place and it's outcome is external, so fuck off. You're not even trying to address my actual points.
[quote=Advocate post_id=502698 time=1615912668 user_id=15238]
Validation by anecdote is trust, not evidence. Hallucinations occur inside so there's no call for external validation, but it could be if you were on an MRI.
[/quote]
You'll hate to learn THAT placebos are scientifically and medically valid to be effective.
Even though there's no external validation (or reason) for them to actually work.
[quote=Advocate post_id=502698 time=1615912668 user_id=15238]
All of which is completely irrelevan to the point of whether god can be validated. If you define god as only needing to have internal existence to be "real" that's obviously not at all what i am talking about.
[/quote]
If God is a placebo, and the placebo has a discernable effect in a randomised control trial - that is sufficient scientific evidence for the existence of God.
[/quote]
If someone says they've experienced x, there are three options; they're mistaken, they're lying, or they're right. None of those options can be known externally without external evidence.
A placebo is an external thing in the first place and it's outcome is external, so fuck off. You're not even trying to address my actual points.
Re: resolving god
In what way is the outcome of a placebo "external ?!?!?
Patient takes sugar pill. Patient feels better.
You are spinning up a web of self-deception about epistemic methodology.
Last edited by Skepdick on Tue Mar 16, 2021 6:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: resolving god
or you can see for yourself if it is true. not all true things have external proofs, philosophy isn't scientific though in todays world people think that.
ether a statement stands true against scrutiny, or not.
Re: resolving god
[quote=Skepdick post_id=502710 time=1615914509 user_id=17350]
[quote=Advocate post_id=502704 time=1615913359 user_id=15238]
A placebo is an external thing in the first place and it's outcome is external, so fuck off. You're not even trying to address my actual points.
[/quote]
In what way is the outcome of a placebo "external ?!?!?
Patient takes sugar pill. Patient feels better.
You are spinning up a web of self-deception about epistemic methodology.
[/quote]
A placebo isn't a placebo if it just makes the patient report feeling better, it's a placebo if they actually Do feel better, which requires external validation. Again, your disagreements are full of subs and furry, signifying nothing. God is still impossible to validate in any meaningful way.
*sound and fury, but autocorrect was more fun this time
[quote=Advocate post_id=502704 time=1615913359 user_id=15238]
A placebo is an external thing in the first place and it's outcome is external, so fuck off. You're not even trying to address my actual points.
[/quote]
In what way is the outcome of a placebo "external ?!?!?
Patient takes sugar pill. Patient feels better.
You are spinning up a web of self-deception about epistemic methodology.
[/quote]
A placebo isn't a placebo if it just makes the patient report feeling better, it's a placebo if they actually Do feel better, which requires external validation. Again, your disagreements are full of subs and furry, signifying nothing. God is still impossible to validate in any meaningful way.
*sound and fury, but autocorrect was more fun this time
Re: resolving god
Yeah! That "feeling better" part is NOT an "external outcome"!Advocate wrote: ↑Tue Mar 16, 2021 6:17 pmA placebo isn't a placebo if it just makes the patient report feeling better, it's a placebo if they actually Do feel better, which requires external validation. Again, your disagreements are full of subs and furry, signifying nothing. God is still impossible to validate in any meaningful way.
*sound and fury, but autocorrect was more fun this time
How exactly do you validate that the patient actually feels better?