littlek wrote:I, for one, don't doubt what you experience, momma. But, your experience does not equate to evidence.
I think that is her point.
OK, again, I'm not one of those who require any proof. Especially if all that is being asserted is "this is what I, personally, believe" and not anything further than that. (Some of the stuff about the bible and about what laws you think should be in place go further than that.)
This metaphor doesn't quite do it, though, because there are so many ways for the objective reality (of red, sight, or sound) that some individuals can't experience to be scientifically proven.
Quote:
The beef is so many ask why can't we give evidence of God or why can't we explain God from our viewpoint. It's just like trying to make someone experience red, sight, or sound.
Only if you keep both within this simple framework. That something can not be communicated directly does not preclude it from being evidenced in other ways. The correlation you are trying to draw depends on keeping a blind eye to the fact that color and sound are empirically testable, while deity is not.
THAT is the real beef.
Who was telling her her own experiences were not valid?
aktorist wrote:Quote:The beef is so many ask why can't we give evidence of God or why can't we explain God from our viewpoint. It's just like trying to make someone experience red, sight, or sound. It cannot be done. Many times we have been accused of dodging the issue or being afraid to answer the questions.
We aren't. We just can't make you experience what we have experienced no matter how hard we try or want to. I was just hoping if everyone realized that BASIC point, it might make it a bit easier on all of us.
Where is the manifestation of God?
God makes no manifestations, whereas color and sound does.
Simple.
Not so simple to those who cannot experience them. Thus, have no knowledge of how to perceive them.
aktorist wrote:This is only your victory against phenomenalism, angel, nothing else.
Thank you for point out the obvious.
Quote:Faith is not inherently invalid. I am not personally a Christian, but there are things that I have an element of faith in even though I know there is no objective truth to them -- I've mentioned karma before. I have a certain faith that if someone acts badly, it'll bite 'em in the butt eventually, but I recognize that it's just faith and nothing particularly fact-based.
It isn't? Anyone could believe anything they want? They can believe that their live is just a conspiracy staged by everyone else, and to them, that's true?
Faith has no correlation with reality. And faith is invalid. "I believe in C" does not imply that C is true.
aktorist... <waves hand in front of face> I'm not saying anything remotely like "I believe in C" implies that C is true.
Quote:Especially if all that is being asserted is "this is what I, personally, believe" and not anything further than that.
This is not how we think of belief. We think of belief as being either true or false, not what we want to believe.
Again...
Where is the manifestation of God?
God makes no manifestations, whereas color and sound does.
Simple.
Quote:Not so simple to those who cannot experience them. Thus, have no knowledge of how to perceive them.
But the difference is there. Manifestation or not?
Experience doesn't matter. Manifestation matters.
What's truth for you, then, is not neccessarily truth for others. If my belief differs from yours, who wins?
aktorist wrote:Quote:Especially if all that is being asserted is "this is what I, personally, believe" and not anything further than that.
This is not how we think of belief. We think of belief as being either true or false, not what we want to believe.
Again...
Where is the manifestation of God?
God makes no manifestations, whereas color and sound does.
Simple.
So you are saying that belief is not belief at all? A Belief has to be true or false?
And, has nothing to do with belief? ?????
aktorist wrote:Quote:Not so simple to those who cannot experience them. Thus, have no knowledge of how to perceive them.
But the difference is there. Manifestation or not?
Experience doesn't matter. Manifestation matters.
Somehow, I think you are off on some other topic altogether. What does manifestation have to do with any of this?
There you go again! Making it complicated! Now, listen, please.
To a color blind person you cannot make them experience red. No evidence will make them experience the color. To a blind person you cannot make them experience sight. No evidence of sight will make them experience sight. To a deaf person you cannot make them experience sound. No evidence of sound will make them experience sound.
C'mon people it's so much simpler than you are making it. Yes, there is evidence but to these people evidence is useless! USELESS! They cannot understand (not the right word) the evidence!
Sure they can.
They don't say "sound does not exist."
Of course they can understand the evidence - they're not implicitly stupid.
But you're saying two things, Angel.
The first thing you said candidly: that phenomenalism is false.
But something is implied tacitly: that one can compare photons to God. They're not the same.
sozobe wrote:Sure they can.
They don't say "sound does not exist."
Neither do they say that sound DOES exist. They have no concept of it the same as others have.
Quote:To a deaf person (born deaf) sound does not exist. All they have is what you tell them. You tell them sound exists but you can't make them experience sound.
Sure it does. If it makes manifestations and affects them, then to them, it exists.
There are many ways to understand something without experiencing it.
There are graphs, and diagrams, and demonstrations, and videos, and all kinds of things that add up to an understanding without personally experiencing it. Again, this is not theoretical, it's something I've done.
So, for something to exist, you have to be able to experience it, MA?
