Faith by Definition

"I think therefore I am" is a bald faced assertion."I am xrayable therefore I am" is another.The world abounds with bald faced assertions whose only anchors are philosophical musings. Welcome to your world Jar.

quote:

---

What test can be used to determine that there is some exposure to the divine as opposed to the non-divine?

---

We've been here already. You don't test for the divine (in the first instance regarding his existance). He shows up. If he does then you know he exists (on the basis of him conforming and being able to conform you so that you "know" he exist).That's all knowing is Jar. An arrangement of atoms.

Seems we've come a full circle. One mans jabberwocky.._________________

You actually have two questions. The first involves the existance of the divine at all. No test is required for that - as has already been pointed out.The second question involves situations post-knowledge of the existance of the divine. There is no point in going into this area with you given that you are currently a lost person and any atttempt at discussion really would appear jabberwocky to you.Its not intellectual/spiritual snobbery Jar but it would be just double-dutch to youSorry

There is knowledge. And there is reality. But unless you can tell me of the foundation on which it's built - that differs from the assumption that what I perceive as real is actually real - then that is the foundation for us both.That you rush away from the foundation we share so as to talk about the structures built upon them - which we don't - is charmingly and predictably Schraf-like. You might say "so what" and "bullshit" but they are the foundations we share for all that..Dig up mine and you dig up your own.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

quote:

---

So you assert. But that is all, simply an unsupported assertion.

---

You assert a test is required. I don't remember that being supported. What's good for the goose. Common sense would tell you that the divine doesn't have to pass tests though. If the divine decides you shall know then you shall know. It's hard to argue against it - not that you have tried.This...

quote:

---

Sorry but simply nonsense. To have knowledge of the existence of the divine you must be able to test whether some event is caused by the divine or non-divine.

---

..is not only an unsupported assertion. It is utter nonsense.To have knowledge of the existance of the divine only requires an act of the divine that ensures your brain takes on the pattern "I know". Occams Razor shaves away any need for "you" to do a thing.

There you go again, straight to the tools. As if the tools themselves were the essential thing.*sigh*The tools are only as powerful as the person using them. It's not the tools that determine what is real and what is fantasy. It is the person who calibrates them and decides which ones to apply to a situation. Its always the person at root. Them and their assumptions.When you get someone like you and someone like me we will use the same tools in many situations. In other situations we diverge however. My toolbox is not exactly the same as yours.Unless you trust your tools you cannot tell what is real from what is fanatasy. You do know what is real and what is fantasy Schraf?Edited by iano, : No reason given.

quote:

---

How will you know?

---

The same way as anyone knows anything. Their brain cells/atoms/synapses conform to a particular pattern. That's all knowing is - we might agree.

quote:

---

What tests can be applied to tell if it is of divine or non-divine origin?

---

Test? You assert one is necessary. I assert one is not. Occams Razor is on my side. Where now?

quote:

---

You make a claim. I asked how you test that. You still have not answered.

---

Claim is too strong a word. I make certain statements.I have answered but you don't like it. One can only do so much with a bad question. I say I don't need to test. Can you imagine the sheer waste of time if everyone went around devising tests to find out whether what they know to be the case is the case.What was that test of your existance again? The one which could test the knowledge of your own existance. I remember now: "I'm xrayable therefore I am"

quote:

---

What is that pattern? How do we test that pattern? What test shows us that the pattern was created by divine rather than non-divine methods.

---

Your shifting goalposts here. The question involved how do I test. And the answer remains the same - no test required. No more so that tests of my existance.Perish the thought of having to devise a test of my existance. Luckily no one asks that kind of silly question around here.

Tell the difference between a real divine experience and a fantasy divine experience? I've already told you - in the same way as I tell the difference between any real experience and any fantasy experience. In the same way that you tell the difference between a real experience and a fantasy one. I assume it is real. You assume it is real.

quote:

---

It's not the tools that determine what is real and what is fantasy. It is the person who calibrates them and decides which ones to apply to a situation. It's always the person at root. Them and their assumptions.

---

If you employ a tool to a particular situation in order to decide then it is you using the tool and you assuming this tool is a useful one in deciding. Your assumptions at root decide what is real.