|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Faith by Definition | |||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1961 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
Tested? As in testing the existance of the divine? Like, we cannot even test the existance of ourselves!!
The question is not what God can do, it is how someone can determine if an experience is divine or not. The question can easily be, in toto, what God can do. You (philosophically) assume otherwise - without mentioning the proof that you seem to suppose underlies your case. Edited by iano, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1961 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
Of course we can run tests on my existence: I can be weighed. I can be photographed. I can be xrayed. Independent observers can test my existence. You suppose to invoke all these "people" and items of "equipment" BEFORE you have demonstrated the existance of self? To assume they exist so as to demonstrate you exist. How very circular! "I'm xrayable - therefore I am"
Quit trying to con the folk. Hrrumph... Edited by iano, : No reason given. Edited by iano, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1961 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
If you can't handle the heat..
NEXT!!!
Jar (more or less) writes: "I'm xrayable - therefore I am" Edited by iano, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1961 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
The reason it doesn't answer the question can lie as much in the weakness of questioning as in the attempt to answer.
How can someone determine if an experience is divine or non-divine or admit that it cannot be done. It cannot be done by the person - not that that matters a jot. It is done by the divine to the person. And if done by the divine the person knows it is the divine. They know it because of the ability of the divine to instill the sense we call "knowing". Sure: it could be delusion. Or the devil playing games. But that's a problem for the extent of what it is to "know". All you can do is know - you're not the divine! Night x Edited by iano, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1961 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
iano writes: I'm not asking you to believe me. I'm just saying that your knowing suffers from the same problems as does mine - when it comes to demonstrating itself absolutely
Schraf writes: Of course, that's not true, and you have had this explained to you many times. There are many ways to externally validate someone's existence and the fact that they are participating in an internet discussion. These "many ways" of yours all involve the bald assumption that the tools used to demonstrate someone elses existance themselves exist. You mean to tell me you can't see the circularity of your argument? This is it: "I assume this tool to exist and I apply this assumed tool to demonstrate the existance of something who existance I am attempting to demonstrate" Your knowing these tools exist doesn't mean they do Schraf - that's elemental. You seem to have a hard time admitting that you do precisely as I do - you assume your knowing certain things exist means they do. You assume that what you perceive to be real is real and move on to apply these perceived tools to particular perceived jobs which you also assume to be real. Your general error is to forget that your argument has to attach to something concrete at the end. And there is nothing concrete at the end. Your structure is built on a foundation called Your Assumptions About The Nature Of Reality. Just as mine is.
The two claims are not at all identical. The foundations are indeed identical. The structures each of us build will depend upon what we perceive the reality to be. But its the foundation that's important. Edited by iano, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1961 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
iano writes: It is done by the divine to the person. And if done by the divine the person knows it is the divine. They know it because of the ability of the divine to instill the sense we call "knowing".
Jar writes: If they know it, "How do they know that it is divine or non-divine." You still have simply avoided the question. I don't believe I have. You seem to be labouring under the notion that the divine is not able to demonstrate his divinity. Which would be foolish in the extreme. If we are to suppose that "knowing" is a particular arrangement of braincells (that differs to the arrangement of brain cells called "suspect that") then it doesn't take a major leap to suppose that the divine can ensure brain cells take on the arrangement call "knowing it is the divine" How do I know? Because the divine made it so. How else do you suppose it could happen in not thus.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1961 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
iano writes: You seem to be labouring under the notion that the divine is not able to demonstrate his divinity.
jar writes: No, I am asking how that is done and how it can be tested. Irrelevant questions in the light of what I say. If you agree the divine can demonstrate his divinity to you then the how and test matter not. You wouldn't have to test the divine if the divine decided to reveal in a way that required no test to be performed I've said it before and shall say it again. The divine can rearrange the atoms in our brain so as we know. So as we know that no test is necessary
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1961 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
To all and sundry you mean? Depends on which divine-model you apply I suppose.
If it was the biblical God you were talking about then I would suggest there were very good reasons why he doesn't just turn up for all.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1961 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
I think we may be talking alongside each other. Maybe a couple of points of common agreement would help??
Do you agree that "knowing a particular thing" is simply an arrangement of atoms/cells/synapse etc? If so, do you agree that the divine can arrange these atoms/cells/synapses so that "we know"? Edited by iano, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1961 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
??
What I'm attempting to show is that your question belongs in Alice in Wonderland. Simply reverting to the question asked (as if it belongs anywhere but in Wonderland) doesn't help your case. Engage in the problems posed. Wrestle free from the Wonderland notion of having to test whether it is the divine or not. Whoever heard of such silliness!!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1961 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
Saying that testing is silly does not help explain how to test the issue. True. The point is: why would one spend their time and energy engaging in a silly activity? Why would one engage in impossible things before breakfast. "Test whether it was divine or not" Whoever heard of such a silly activity*! (AbE: in the sense of deciding whether there is a divine or no) Edited by iano, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1961 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
er...no.
My answer was that you cannot test for the divine (in terms of it existing or no). The divine must come to man - not man coming to the divine (by way of his man-sized tests)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1961 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
Now I can. After experiencing the divine I have a measure against which to examine subsequents. But that is different to testing for the existance of the divine in the first place. Which seemed to be your bent
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1961 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
Present you with the specifics?
Are you not being a little presumptuous in supposing that you would be in a position to understand the specifics? On what basis that notion?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1961 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
I have claimed it is possible that I can test. This on the basis of my prior exposure to the divine.
You are being presumptious in supposing that you could make any sense of the specifics. Why do you suppose you should be able to?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024