What you want to know about Christ.

She has repeatedly ignored the answer given because it does not conform to the answer she wants. Interpret my experience? How do you 'interpret' the experience of looking at the computer screen on front of you right now. Or do you not interpret it at all and simply take for granted that what you are observing is the case: that there is truly a computer screen on front of you. Not an imaginary screen created by a demon. Or your own mind simply imagining a screen on front of you. Avoid assuming empiricism as arbitrator of what is real/not real and we will go far I wouldn't see my attitude as disrespectful. If you can't agree on terms there is little point in carrying on discussing. Schraf asks how do I know what is real. In order to answer we would first need to agree on what defines real. This we cannot do. Neither of those verses refer to God action wrt believers.How I know Gods voice is the same as how I know God exists. God takes the action required to ensure I do. Perhaps he rearranges neural networks to conform to the state of knowing. That is all knowing is surely: a particular arrangement of neural networks? Certainly a believer wouldn't be surprised at the transformation that occurs due to the renewing of their minds (Romans 12:2)I would repeat that my knowing something (anything) doesn't mean it is actually the case. The same goes for you. We shouldn't ask too much of "knowing" Not that I am aware of. Its not that I am being "spoken to" that frequently. Its a whole other subject, the relationship a person has with God. And quite individual as well.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

It is to me. It is not to everyone else. Their perception of what constitutes reality contains no unicorn. Mine does. If we assume for simplicities sake that one set of perceptions is right (they could both be wrong) then either set could be right.That a crowd observe (or in this case, don't observe) the same thing says nothing about the reality of that observation - it just means that this crowds perception of reality happens to coincide. They all perceive reality in the same way. Which doesn't mean the reality they perceive is any real-er than anothers.

Its bubbles all the way down.The crazy sit in their own bubbles, thinking the area inside their sphere is reality.The sane sit outside those bubbles looking through the skin of the deluded's bubbles - watching them in their delusion.The sane sit in a bubble thinking the area inside the (often empirically demonstrable) sphere is reality.The saved sit outside that bubble, looking through the transparent skin at the "sane" in their delusion. Watching them in their delusion and trying to burst their bubble.The saved sit inside a bubble. The skin of the bubble is called God. By his own testimony that skin is infinitely thick..perhaps God sits inside a bubble. But I suspect not. Maan

The claim (mine or anothers) of an experience of God can have but one real source. The main categories Schraf posed were:- The experience is indeed sourced from God
- The experience is sourced from some supernatural being who is not God
- There is no supernatural aspect to it and I'm imagining it. I am the sourceAll options are possible but only one of them is real. She asks how can I tell which of the possibilities it is. Ergo, she is asking me which how can I tell which possibility is the real one. If I can tell which is the real one then I can tell what is real. Ergo she is asking how I know what is real. This is what you asked: ..and this was my answer. This answer did not include a reference to my 'mantra' - although I mentioned that in response to a later part of your post.The answer I did gave (which illustrates your question as poorly framed) shows us that people don't "interpret" their reality - they just assume their reality is the case. PS: don't err in supposing that empiricism verifies reality. The experience was real because I experienced it. The question is which of the options was behind the real experience. If you are simply assuming as you do so as to reduce the number of options from 3 to 2 then you haven't actually done anything to garner a different answer from the time when the options were 3.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Presumably these people of yours first assume their reality to be the case. They would need to do that in order to be sure that the other people they are comparing themselves with actually exist. Fine so long as fine-tuning is not necessarily taken as moving our perceptions any closer to the actual reality. Given the amount of people on the world who have one or other spiritual outlook (and thus perception of reality) I wonder who forms your "collective perceptionists".Edited by iano, : No reason given.