Faith by Definition

So you're saying that you must be Napoleon because you're wearing Napoleon's hat.Naturally, delusions are going to feed themselves. Delusions can certainly be self-consistent.The question is: How do you test the initial experience?

---

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels

On the basis that you have claimed it is possible to test to determine whether something is of divine or non-divine origin.Then present us with the specifics of the test to see if the source is divine or non-divine?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

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?

Yes you have made such an assertion, however it is absolutely nothing but a bald faced assertion since you have never explained how you could tell you have had prior exposure to the divine.What test can be used to determine that there is some exposure to the divine as opposed to the non-divine?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

"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.

Sorry iano but is simply jabberwocky. It has no meaning or relevance.The question remains how do you test to see if she showed up?How do you test to determine if some event has a divine origin or non-divine.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

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

Sorry iano but is simply jabberwocky. It has no meaning or relevance.The question remains how do you test to see if she showed up?How do you test to determine if some event has a divine origin or non-divine.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

OK, so what you are basically saying is some postmodern bullshit like "there is no reality or knowledge."Howsabout we give you a nice big glass of cyanide to drink?My tools will, I think, accurately predict the outcome you this action, regardless of your lame claims to the contrary. My tools work, and you still appear to be bound to the same rules of reality as everybody else, even if those rules are all in our collective headsSure, we might all live in the Matrix, but who cares? To say, "Reality might all be nothing like we think!" is just an elaborate effort to avoid the logical consequences of your position.Given the tools we all use to determine what is real from what is fantasy in this reality as we know it, how do we tell the difference between an authentic divine experience and one we've imagined?

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

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

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

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.

Given the tools we all use to determine what is real from what is fantasy in this reality as we know it, how do we tell the difference between an authentic divine experience and one we've imagined?

How will you know? What tests can be applied to tell if it is of divine or non-divine origin?You still have not described the test. I'm sorry but what test is used to determine if the divine or some non-divine source caused the yet undefined pattern?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion