Going back to Dichanthelium's post at #58, my point is related to that. I understand you (hue-man) to be saying that a claim that is unverified but verifiable in principle may be true or false, but a claim that is unverifiable in principle is always false.
In the thirteenth century the Italian Franciscan monk, Bonaventura, stated in his famous The Mind's Road to God, "It happens that we may contemplate God not only outside of us but also within us." Walter Hilton, an English religious of the fourteenth century explained in The Scale of Perfection that, ". . . [union] is in the heart alone; it is without words, and is accompanied by great peace and tranquility of body and soul." The French Carmelite monastic, Brother Lawrence, wrote in the seventeenth century in his Spiritual Maxims, "Actual union is . . . livelier than that of fire and more luminous than a sun undarkened by a cloud. . . . it is an ineffable state of the soul-gentle, peaceful, devout, respectful, humble, loving and very simple." Finally, a report of how the union experience appeared to Julian of Norwich, a fourteenth century English Nun, "And then the Lord opened my ghostly eye and shewed my soul in the midst of my heart. I saw the Soul as it were an endless world, and as it were a blissful kingdom."
Those inner practitioners and a great many others I could list spent years practicing, so do you think you can just bounce around without any practice and expect to experience what the expertly practiced do? First learn to still your mind and feel your core, see what you detect, and then report back to us whether or not you've perceived something omnipresent.
Okay, I'll take a bite at this one cuz it's just so darn silly.
If you are going to consider the witness of those people you listed as being evidence of omnipresence, will you consider the witness of anyone who claims to have done the same exercise as them but have had no such omnipresent experience as evidence that there is no omnipresence?
I mean, you're treating this like it's some sort of experiment, so why discount anyone's results?
We can reasonably assume that the vast majority of people who have attempted to experience omnipresence have failed, but they don't widely report such because who ever reports a failure to reach God?
So if 100 people try to experience omnipresence the same way, but only one reports success, shouldn't we consider the experiment a failure?.
All you're telling us by the above examples is that we should take more unverifiable evidence as proof of God. Sorry but that doesn't even work for me and I'm a theist. You can't possibly expect an atheist to take this stuff seriously.
You did a much better job of presenting a logical argument in post #61 above. Kudos for that.
Don't get me wrong, I'm on your side in this overall debate. I also believe that you can't prove or disprove God. But for the same reasons I would say that you can't prove or disprove the presence of omniscience.
You have accounts from two dozen practitioners that they succeeded at an experiment that they cannot even provide evidence for that they attempted, let alone succeeded.
You're playing around with metaphysics and treating it like it's physics and then saying to the OP, there, this disproves your argument.
What you have is witnesses of an omniscient experience whose witness cannot be accounted. Nor can it be accepted, because they were already predisposed to the result that they achieved before they began.
Now I agree that the OP shouldn't base his dismissal of omnipresence on the problem that he has not experienced such. But I do think that he has presented a better reason to dismiss it than the reason that you have presented not to dismiss it.
This whole bit about clearing your mind and opening yourself up to the universe just throws your argument into the realm of mysticism and completely away from the logic that you are striving for.
I wonder, are you confusing omniscience with omnipresence?
Can you prove there is an experience called love? If someone you are talking to has never felt it, and since you cannot put it on the table for him to see, are we then justified in "dismissing" your claim that there is an experience of love?
2) Then there is the type of experiential proof you'd have to offer the person wanting to know if there is such a thing as the experience of love. That proof is not externalizable, he can only prove it by experiencing love within himself.
I didn't say it disproves (or proves) anything. I said his arguments were fallacious,
Also, my point was not about metaphysics. It was people who develop their consciousness in a very specific way, and what some of them report. It is you who has decided some metaphysical conclusion is to be extracted from those reports.
What you are really doing is drawing an arbitrary line between types of experience, and then (it seems to me) equally arbitrarily deciding one category of experience is to be trusted, and the other is not (or at least is not compatible with logic). In past debates I've had with people whose philosophy is physicalist, they have often insisted only physical epistemology (like empiricism) is valid. How very convenient it is to one's personal philosophy to "dismiss" anything that doesn't agree with their a priori belief system. I am not saying you are doing that, but if you are it is bad logic and bad epistemology.
What is empiricism suited for? The study of the physical world. What is the orientation of one's attention? Outward, away from oneself. What experience is relied on to observe? The senses.
What is union meditation suited for? The study of what is behind the senses. What is the orientation of one's attention? Inward, actually withdrawn from the senses and focused toward the source of consciousness. What experience is relied on to observe? Well, you'll have to practice to find out.
I love both sorts of experiential study, and actively participate in both. I do not get confused about what types of knowledge they give, I don't mix the two at all.
How do you know they were predisposed? It is you who is trying to predispose the results by prejudicing our evaluation of their reports. What possible reason could you have for discounting their reports out of hand unless you have simply decided a priori all such reports are suspect?
It results after attaining "union" during meditation, and then one experiences a sense that one has joined a huge mind that is present everywhere. After years of practice, this sense can become a permanent part of one's conscious experience.
But sir, he has presented no reason whatsoever to "dismiss" anything. If we are going to be logically prudent, then the best his reasoning adds up to is that he has cause not to "believe." In other words, the optimal epistemologically-sound mental state is one of neutrality; if we are really seeking knowledge, the less we think we "know" in advance of study the more open we are to letting reality teach us how it is.
Conversely, the more one "believes, the more one forsakes the discovery process because one deserts experience as the avenue to belief in order to substitute a mental construct. Now, rather than paying attention to reality and allowing the experience of reality to shape our views, a conceptual framework is in place which filters and twists information so that the settled-on mental edifice is maintained.
Nonsense. Why do you, or anyone, get to say we cannot discuss ALL the potentials of consciousness . . . merely because you aren't interested? Because you've decided in advance you don't believe in such things? Because you already know the Truth?
I didn't say anything about "opening up to the universe." I talked about turning one's attention inward, and practicing in a very specific way. Those who've become skilled at this discover things anyone who doesn't practice cannot discover. So on what basis do you eliminate these people from consideration as explorers of reality, as discoverers of knowledge? Physical study isn't the only thing that can benefit from reason, and sense experience isn't the only kind of experience humankind has explored.
But you can demonstrably show that you do love someone. Given such, others can reasonably conclude that you have experienced love. But how would one demonstrably show that they have experienced omnipresence?
Isn't that the same thing though? How could his argument be anything but disproven if it is proven to be fallacious? A fallacious argument is logically unsound. Well, how can a logical argument not be disproven if it is proven to be logically unsound?
I assumed we were talking about the metaphysical when it comes to people expanding their minds beyond what most others would consider physical reality. If I was wrong about that then I apologize again. But if the experiences reported were not metaphysical, what were they? I'd love to know, because if they weren't metaphysical then I'm at a loss to explain them.
I think that the empiricist would say that it is "convenient" that you cannot provide empirical proof. I think also that the empericists problem with experiental evidence is that there's no way of knowing if the witness is being honest. But I'll give what I can, since, as I said before, I am on your side of the overall debate. Even considering solely experiental evidence, I think the distinction between the questions about love and omnipresence is that love is demonstrable, but omnipresence, to my knowledge at least, isn't. If it were then that'd be cool.
This doesn't sound easy or quick. It sounds like it would take an awful long time and a whole lot of effort. I find it unlikely that a spiritually neutral person would put such time and effort into it. If you can find an example where one of the witnesses claims that before their omnipresent experience they had no preinclination to believe in omnipresence, or more directly, anything spiritual, then I'll give them the benefit of the doubt that they are being honest and I will gladly withdraw my accusation.
I agree completely that he shouldn't dismiss anything. But the article did contain the writer's reason for why he dismissed omnipresence. It may not be all that good a reason to you, but it was there.
I can only ask you one question as it pertains to these claims about omnipresence; have you experienced it?
1. I understand 'atheist' to mean someone who believes that God does not exist. You are using the term to mean someone who does not believe that God exists. OK, in the latter sense a wavering agnostic is an atheist. But lack of belief in God's existence does not logically entail belief in his non-existence. I want a term that refers to people who cannot form a positive belief either way. If I do not believe that it rained in London on 1st July 1329 (because I have no evidence either way), it does not follow that I believe it did not rain in London on that date. I can perfectly well have neither the belief that it did nor the belief that it didn't. Similarly with belief in God; I can be agnostic in my sense of the word. 'If X is not the case, then not-X is the case' is valid; but 'If I do not believe X, then I believe not-X' is invalid.
2. You say agnosticism is an epistemological claim. Well, not necessarily. If someone says 'We cannot know whether God exists', that is epistemological and (I admit) weakly atheistic. But 'God may or may not exist' is a statement about God, not about knowledge per se; hence it is metaphysical, not epistemological.
You've probably heard of the zombie argument (the p-zombie concept David Chalmers made popular), and that could apply here in a way. A person could merely behave as though they love, but not actually feel it (or as Chalmers might say, lack qualia). That really happens in fact when a gold digger wants to marry someone rich, or molester wants to take advantage of children, etc. Whether the experience of love is going on is only actually known by the individual him/herself. The truth is, there is no external way I know of to prove someone else genuinely experiences love.
No, they are completely different things. His argument is invalid, but his overall point about omnipresence is not disproved. If I meant his point was disproved, I'd be violating the fallacy I listed in my last post, the argument to logic. God is not proven because of an improper atheistic argument, atheism isn't proven because of a bad God argument.
Do you understand I am not trying to claim the omnipresent experience is a fact (or provable)? I am attacking Hue-man's logic and use of facts; specifically, that he argues fallaciously, and that his choice of facts is selective of that which helps his point, and excludes what might challenge his point. It is clear to me at least that he has a belief system firmly in place, and he is arguing to further his anti-religion agenda rather than using reason to discover/reveal truth, no matter what that turns out to be.
A metaphysical proposition will offer some model for the nature of reality. I might develop some ideas on that from experiences of omnipresence, but then that would be a different discussion. But if I experience omnipresence, and instead of trying to say what it means about the nature of existence, I simply report what the experience is like, then I am giving testimony as a witness and not philosophizing on metaphysics.
By "empiricist" I assume you mean someone who only accepts science-verified facts. A better term for that persuasion is "scientismist" (i.e., a scientism believer). Such a thinker by his own admission has decided to be open to only information that comes via sense experience (the basis of empiricism), and to be closed to all else. So why should we care what anyone with a filtering belief system in place finds "convenient"?
My example of "convenience" to you was about just such thinkers, people who believe they know the way to the truth, and so create filters to "conveniently" exclude anything that doesn't fit their beliefs. I, on the other hand, have no such filtering belief system, I'll accept anything that produces knowledge, I don't give a rat's behind what form it takes. So I fully accept and treasure all that science reveals . . . FULLY. I don't believe however (unlike scientismists) that science has proven it can reveal all knowable truths. As far as I've seen, science reveals physical information, period.
Well, how am I going to interview dead people (since those I quoted are long gone)? But your "accusation" is unwarranted. You should accuse because you do have evidence of something. It is slanderous to accuse people of something because there is no evidence proving it isn't so.
But this is horrible philosophy! What's the point of signing up for philosophical discussion if any old reason is acceptable??? Philosophy is supposed to be the search for truth through reason, and reason has rules. And those rules are not just proper logic (which Hue-man violates), but also an unbiased, factually balanced presentation of what we are to consider. I'd add one more requirement not normally mentioned, and that is sincerity, because without sincerity philosophy becomes sophistry. I can say that in this regard Socrates and I are kindred spirits, I detest with all my being sophist manipulations.
Well, I worry I'll sound proud for talking about it, but as of December 2008, I have practiced union meditation daily, normally for an hour at dawn, for 35 years. Before that, I admit to doing something like 200 peyote trips which I suspect is what made me look for a natural way to achieve the expanded experience (i.e., without drugs).
I had my first omnipresent experience in union meditation within the first year of practice; now it is a permanent part of my conscious life. While I value that aspect of the union experience, after so many years I've grown used to it and now enjoy some of the far better stuff it gives.
But I have to add, if you read back you will see I have not been trying to promote the experience. Unless I start a thread to expressly discuss union, my goals are to promote open-mindedness about what we allow as ways to discovery and knowing.
Okay, I just want to try to focus on one concept at a time, if you don't mind. I'm not trying to prove anything about "God." I just want to understand what you are saying.
You are saying that, in fact, you don't "always consider a claim to be false until is verified." I thought you made previous assertions to the contrary, so that helps me understand that much.
So, it would appear that you would agree that a claim is not necessarily false merely by virtue of its being unverified.
I think you are saying that unverified claims in certain categories are necessarily false, merely by virtue of their unverifiability. Other unverified claims in other categories may or may not be false, merely by virtue of their unverifiability.
Am I understanding you correctly up to this point?
If a claim is unverifiable then yes, it is a false claim.
Take the claim that Julius Caesar sneezed just before he crossed the Rubicon. No one can verify it. Is it false? How on earth would anyone know that. Now take the claim that there are an odd number of grains of sand on Wakiki Beach in Hawaii. Can that be verified? Is it false? For all we know it might be true.
Yes, that is exactly my point. I suppose the second claim can theoretically be verified, but the first cannot. See my post #60.
Take the claim that Julius Caesar sneezed just before he crossed the Rubicon. No one can verify it. Is it false? How on earth would anyone know that. Now take the claim that there are an odd number of grains of sand on Wakiki Beach in Hawaii. Can that be verified? Is it false? For all we know it might be true.
If it cannot be verified then it is false to claim that he sneezed just before he crossed Rubicon. If you claim that he did sneeze before crossing Rubicon then the burden of proof is on you.
Hue-man, are you saying that 'he sneezed' and 'he didn't sneeze' are both false if neither can be verified? Isn't that logically impossible? (Bear in mind that Julius Caesar actually did cross the Rubicon.)
I'm going to make a few more attempts to help you guys understand me. I apologize if I seem obscure in my explanation, but I'm trying to be as clear as possible. What I am saying is that to claim that Caesar sneezed or didn't sneeze when he crossed the Rubicon are both false claims, because there is no evidence whatsoever to support such claims. I am not saying that it didn't happen. A claim is a statement of knowledge, and so I am saying that it is false to claim that he did or didn't sneeze.
I'm going to make a few more attempts to help you guys understand me. I apologize if I seem obscure in my explanation, but I'm trying to be as clear as possible. What I am saying is that to claim that Caesar sneezed or didn't sneeze when he crossed the Rubicon are both false claims, because there is no evidence whatsoever to support such claims. I am not saying that it didn't happen. A claim is a statement of knowledge, and so I am saying that it is false to claim that he did or didn't sneeze.
