Total Posts:17|Showing Posts:1-17
Jump to topic:

Theistic Experiences

SubterFugitive
Posts: 255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2014 8:33:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Experiences of God or some supernatural state of affairs are veridical if what the experiencing agent took the experienced object as existing and present and caused that agent to have the experience in an appropriate way.

The question is are such experiences veridical then? Should we take these experiences to be "innocent until proven guilty" of being false? Or should it be the other way around? If so, why?
arielmessenger
Posts: 30
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2014 8:49:43 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Thousands upon thousands of people have spiritual experiences every day probably. Religious visionaries continually pop up and no two of them share the same Messages from God.

Jesus Christ gives the appropriate wisdom in telling a true prophesy bearer of God from the hundreds of false ones, past and present, e.g. one posting on Debate forums predicting the End of the World soon as many apocalyptic doomsday street corner prophets and church pulpit preachers do. It is by their "fruits" ye shall know them, i.e., by what really happens with the results of their predictions which historically means they always, without exception, get it wrong. And thank God for that!

Salvation is of the Jews. Accept no substitutes and demand the brand name in prophesy bearing as the Celestial Torah was placed in our hands as Keepers and dispersers of Its special spiritual Messianic Message for all humankind. Spiritual movement is alive again in our times as the Messianic Message has arrived once again through kosher prophesy bearing and not the many Gentile frauds who've suckered believers away with their man-made mumbo-jumbo from direct one-to-One communion with God and the Spirit of Christ.
perplexed
Posts: 863
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2014 10:29:47 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/12/2014 8:33:21 PM, SubterFugitive wrote:
Experiences of God or some supernatural state of affairs are veridical if what the experiencing agent took the experienced object as existing and present and caused that agent to have the experience in an appropriate way.
yes i agree, but not an objective truth, it's a subjective experience very similar as how art affects people differently..

The question is are such experiences veridical then?
no.

Should we take these experiences to be "innocent until proven guilty" of being false? Or should it be the other way around? If so, why?
take them for what they mean to you and don't expect others to experience what you do, cause really this is an abstract idea and to expect the same "realness" is asking for way too much from others who have the basic right to experience what they experience in the way they experience it.
: At 4/29/2014 3:14:36 AM, annanicole wrote:

:
: I'll be happy to concede the raping of virgin girls, if you can find it somewhere.
SubterFugitive
Posts: 255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2014 3:02:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/13/2014 10:29:47 AM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/12/2014 8:33:21 PM, SubterFugitive wrote:
Experiences of God or some supernatural state of affairs are veridical if what the experiencing agent took the experienced object as existing and present and caused that agent to have the experience in an appropriate way.


yes i agree, but not an objective truth, it's a subjective experience very similar as how art affects people differently..

I agree that the experience is subjective in the sense that its had by a subject, but so is the experience of the external physical world. My question is therefore, why consider this experience subjective in the sense that its an illusion or a false experience, not an experience of anything real.




The question is are such experiences veridical then?



no.

Why think so?


Should we take these experiences to be "innocent until proven guilty" of being false? Or should it be the other way around? If so, why?



take them for what they mean to you and don't expect others to experience what you do, cause really this is an abstract idea and to expect the same "realness" is asking for way too much from others who have the basic right to experience what they experience in the way they experience it.

I agree that we don't experience things in the same way, but that doesn't alter the nature of the thing being experienced. There is a critical dialogue when it comes to perception and, again, I don't think it's warranted to throw out that dialogue simply because of its critical nature.

Science is like this, just because we can't agree on our experience of quantum mechanics doesn't imply that subatomic particles don't exist. Wouldn't you agree?
perplexed
Posts: 863
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2014 3:12:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/13/2014 3:02:06 PM, SubterFugitive wrote:
At 4/13/2014 10:29:47 AM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/12/2014 8:33:21 PM, SubterFugitive wrote:
Experiences of God or some supernatural state of affairs are veridical if what the experiencing agent took the experienced object as existing and present and caused that agent to have the experience in an appropriate way.



yes i agree, but not an objective truth, it's a subjective experience very similar as how art affects people differently..

I agree that the experience is subjective in the sense that its had by a subject, but so is the experience of the external physical world.
present your case for this claim...

My question is therefore, why consider this experience subjective in the sense that its an illusion or a false experience, not an experience of anything real.
i didn't. i just said these experiences are subjective and would explain why there is a plethora of interpretation from one book




The question is are such experiences veridical then?



no.

Why think so?
because there is no empirical evidence that would make it plausible to think so.


Should we take these experiences to be "innocent until proven guilty" of being false? Or should it be the other way around? If so, why?



take them for what they mean to you and don't expect others to experience what you do, cause really this is an abstract idea and to expect the same "realness" is asking for way too much from others who have the basic right to experience what they experience in the way they experience it.

I agree that we don't experience things in the same way, but that doesn't alter the nature of the thing being experienced.
sure it does...
we will experience an airplane ride the same way and we will not confuse that experience with taking a shower or eating a meal.

There is a critical dialogue when it comes to perception
i think that has to do with the right brian

Science is like this, just because we can't agree on our experience of quantum mechanics doesn't imply that subatomic particles don't exist. Wouldn't you agree?
but the problem with that analogy is subatomic particles aren't claiming to be representing an all encompassing authority who wishes to be acknowledged...big difference.
: At 4/29/2014 3:14:36 AM, annanicole wrote:

:
: I'll be happy to concede the raping of virgin girls, if you can find it somewhere.
arielmessenger
Posts: 30
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2014 3:44:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Those without theistic experience have nothing authorative to say about the subject under discussion.

Theistic experiences are not always subjective and that's when we know Divine Intervention is happening, when theistic experiences become shared realities, e.g. the Nazarean Christians, over 500 of them sharing in the Sword of Peace Pentecostal event at Easter in Nazareth in 2003.
SubterFugitive
Posts: 255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2014 3:46:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/13/2014 3:12:19 PM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/13/2014 3:02:06 PM, SubterFugitive wrote:
At 4/13/2014 10:29:47 AM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/12/2014 8:33:21 PM, SubterFugitive wrote:
Experiences of God or some supernatural state of affairs are veridical if what the experiencing agent took the experienced object as existing and present and caused that agent to have the experience in an appropriate way.



yes i agree, but not an objective truth, it's a subjective experience very similar as how art affects people differently..

I agree that the experience is subjective in the sense that its had by a subject, but so is the experience of the external physical world.

present your case for this claim...

Would you like to debate this? It's an area of interest for me and it's called the realism anti-realism debate.


My question is therefore, why consider this experience subjective in the sense that its an illusion or a false experience, not an experience of anything real.


i didn't. i just said these experiences are subjective and would explain why there is a plethora of interpretation from one book

You didn't what? And what do you mean by "subjective"? There are lots of definitions and so it's an ambiguous term. I use it in the sense that experiences are had by a subject. But whether the experience is veridical or not depends on the way that reality is. Do you think we can gradually come to know this reality?





The question is are such experiences veridical then?



no.

Why think so?


because there is no empirical evidence that would make it plausible to think so.

That's pretty course grained and simplistic. The empirical evidence would itself have to be experienced so we're back at square one. Also the empirical evidence would be the experiences themselves. They are the facts to be explained. Now how you explain them is another matter. My question is should we take them as veridical or not, you say no because there is no evidence that these experiences are veridical, this is a circular objection.



Should we take these experiences to be "innocent until proven guilty" of being false? Or should it be the other way around? If so, why?



take them for what they mean to you and don't expect others to experience what you do, cause really this is an abstract idea and to expect the same "realness" is asking for way too much from others who have the basic right to experience what they experience in the way they experience it.

I agree that we don't experience things in the same way, but that doesn't alter the nature of the thing being experienced.

sure it does... we will experience an airplane ride the same way and we will not confuse that experience with taking a shower or eating a meal.

Then no it doesn't alter the nature of the thing being experienced! Haha you disagree but then agree. Our experience of he plane ride is veridical, there really is a plane and we are riding in it! If this is the case, then we can know reality even if we individually experience it in a subjective sense, right?


There is a critical dialogue when it comes to perception
i think that has to do with the right brian

No, that isn't what I was getting at. By critical dialogue I mean a give and take of understanding our world. Sometimes you have to give, other times you take. Meaning we can be wrong but there is a gradual progress in understanding the structure of the world as it really is. Despite the fact that we all experience it in subtle different ways.


Science is like this, just because we can't agree on our experience of quantum mechanics doesn't imply that subatomic particles don't exist. Wouldn't you agree?


but the problem with that analogy is subatomic particles aren't claiming to be representing an all encompassing authority who wishes to be acknowledged...big difference.

Right but you took the analogy where it isn't meant to go. Insofar as we can experience God then our experience of him shouldn't be dismissed on the basis of disagreement alone. Otherwise any disagreement you have in any area of inquiry would be sufficient to scrap that project. And so it seems you agree with me that theistic experiences shouldn't be treated in this way, right?
perplexed
Posts: 863
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2014 3:59:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/13/2014 3:46:20 PM, SubterFugitive wrote:
At 4/13/2014 3:12:19 PM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/13/2014 3:02:06 PM, SubterFugitive wrote:
At 4/13/2014 10:29:47 AM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/12/2014 8:33:21 PM, SubterFugitive wrote:
Experiences of God or some supernatural state of affairs are veridical if what the experiencing agent took the experienced object as existing and present and caused that agent to have the experience in an appropriate way.



yes i agree, but not an objective truth, it's a subjective experience very similar as how art affects people differently..

I agree that the experience is subjective in the sense that its had by a subject, but so is the experience of the external physical world.

present your case for this claim...

Would you like to debate this? It's an area of interest for me and it's called the realism anti-realism debate.
i had this same conversation where the other person asked me to present 3 objective experiences
to which i replied with one, we are communicating in the same language...and then their response was we can't prove we are communicating to which i then replied with

dasfnpansdf 9889-hhaf-9 faipfsdhi a

so really i'm not interested in these sorts of conversations being that they really have nothing to do with the detrimental consequences religious dogma has caused as it is my contention that dogma is as dangerous as drunk driving...for very obvious reasons...that TO ME are more important to discus.


My question is therefore, why consider this experience subjective in the sense that its an illusion or a false experience, not an experience of anything real.


i didn't. i just said these experiences are subjective and would explain why there is a plethora of interpretation from one book

You didn't what?
consider this experience subjective in the sense that its an illusion or a false experience
: At 4/29/2014 3:14:36 AM, annanicole wrote:

:
: I'll be happy to concede the raping of virgin girls, if you can find it somewhere.
SubterFugitive
Posts: 255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2014 4:39:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/13/2014 3:59:44 PM, perplexed wrote:


I agree that the experience is subjective in the sense that its had by a subject, but so is the experience of the external physical world.

present your case for this claim...

Would you like to debate this? It's an area of interest for me and it's called the realism anti-realism debate.

i had this same conversation where the other person asked me to present 3 objective experiences
to which i replied with one, we are communicating in the same language...and then their response was we can't prove we are communicating to which i then replied with

dasfnpansdf 9889-hhaf-9 faipfsdhi a

so really i'm not interested in these sorts of conversations being that they really have nothing to do with the detrimental consequences religious dogma has caused as it is my contention that dogma is as dangerous as drunk driving...for very obvious reasons...that TO ME are more important to discus.

Oh I see, so this is a political position not a philosophical one, I get ya haha. I personally have little interest in the political consequences of other religions since it is ubiquitous in any ideology (liberalism included) that folks use that dogma for their own gain and evil, that's no surprise. With the bare bones Christianity I gave you there is nothing but good. But of course folks will use this for doing evil. Just as bad things can be used to do good in the long run, so also the reverse is possible. That's not surprising at all.

So your bent against religion is, as it were, a bent against the corruption of humanity, which is what Christ came to save us from.



My question is therefore, why consider this experience subjective in the sense that its an illusion or a false experience, not an experience of anything real.


i didn't. i just said these experiences are subjective and would explain why there is a plethora of interpretation from one book

You didn't what?
consider this experience subjective in the sense that its an illusion or a false experience

Then what sort of "subjective" do you mean?
perplexed
Posts: 863
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2014 4:40:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/13/2014 3:44:48 PM, arielmessenger wrote:
Those without theistic experience have nothing authorative to say about the subject under discussion.

Theistic experiences are not always subjective
can you prove it by submitting objective evidence...

and that's when we know Divine Intervention is happening,
not necessarily, and not exclusively true.

when theistic experiences become shared realities, e.g. the Nazarean Christians, over 500 of them sharing in the Sword of Peace Pentecostal event at Easter in Nazareth in 2003.

this???
http://biomystic.org...
: At 4/29/2014 3:14:36 AM, annanicole wrote:

:
: I'll be happy to concede the raping of virgin girls, if you can find it somewhere.
perplexed
Posts: 863
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2014 4:46:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/13/2014 4:39:04 PM, SubterFugitive wrote:
At 4/13/2014 3:59:44 PM, perplexed wrote:


I agree that the experience is subjective in the sense that its had by a subject, but so is the experience of the external physical world.

present your case for this claim...

Would you like to debate this? It's an area of interest for me and it's called the realism anti-realism debate.


i had this same conversation where the other person asked me to present 3 objective experiences
to which i replied with one, we are communicating in the same language...and then their response was we can't prove we are communicating to which i then replied with

dasfnpansdf 9889-hhaf-9 faipfsdhi a

so really i'm not interested in these sorts of conversations being that they really have nothing to do with the detrimental consequences religious dogma has caused as it is my contention that dogma is as dangerous as drunk driving...for very obvious reasons...that TO ME are more important to discus.

Oh I see, so this is a political position not a philosophical one, I get ya haha. I personally have little interest in the political consequences of other religions since it is ubiquitous in any ideology (liberalism included) that folks use that dogma for their own gain and evil, that's no surprise. With the bare bones Christianity I gave you there is nothing but good. But of course folks will use this for doing evil. Just as bad things can be used to do good in the long run, so also the reverse is possible. That's not surprising at all.
right..so why would any one defend an ideology that is fallible?

So your bent against religion is, as it were, a bent against the corruption of humanity, which is what Christ came to save us from.
not true...humanity is also good, not exclusively bad...so really christ actually came to die for himself as we see it in what the christian adherent says openly and as you just did...we are meaningless without jesus in us...so really, as it appears, we are discussing the traits of a narcissistic god here...which seems really human like as certain humans can posses that trait




My question is therefore, why consider this experience subjective in the sense that its an illusion or a false experience, not an experience of anything real.


i didn't. i just said these experiences are subjective and would explain why there is a plethora of interpretation from one book

You didn't what?
consider this experience subjective in the sense that its an illusion or a false experience

Then what sort of "subjective" do you mean?

based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions...
: At 4/29/2014 3:14:36 AM, annanicole wrote:

:
: I'll be happy to concede the raping of virgin girls, if you can find it somewhere.
Fruitytree
Posts: 2,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2014 5:06:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
From a religious perspective, spiritual experiences can be of 3 cathegories:

- Destiny , meaning the event was destined anyway but the person may interpret it as a spiritual experience.

-Real experience: prayers answered and things even less common .

-Illusion : if a person is already in a wrong path, he maybe eventually further deluded by some spiritual experiences.

To answer your question, I think these experiences are personal, you can't really make conclusions based on them , but every person are free to take them the way they feel, except when it's an obvious miracle!
perplexed
Posts: 863
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2014 5:16:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/13/2014 5:06:56 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
From a religious perspective, spiritual experiences can be of 3 cathegories:

- Destiny , meaning the event was destined anyway but the person may interpret it as a spiritual experience.

-Real experience: prayers answered and things even less common .

-Illusion : if a person is already in a wrong path, he maybe eventually further deluded by some spiritual experiences.

To answer your question, I think these experiences are personal, you can't really make conclusions based on them , but every person are free to take them the way they feel, except when it's an obvious miracle!

and where is that miracle?
: At 4/29/2014 3:14:36 AM, annanicole wrote:

:
: I'll be happy to concede the raping of virgin girls, if you can find it somewhere.
Fruitytree
Posts: 2,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2014 5:20:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/13/2014 5:16:15 PM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/13/2014 5:06:56 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
From a religious perspective, spiritual experiences can be of 3 cathegories:

- Destiny , meaning the event was destined anyway but the person may interpret it as a spiritual experience.

-Real experience: prayers answered and things even less common .

-Illusion : if a person is already in a wrong path, he maybe eventually further deluded by some spiritual experiences.


To answer your question, I think these experiences are personal, you can't really make conclusions based on them , but every person are free to take them the way they feel, except when it's an obvious miracle!

and where is that miracle?

I give you an example that I believe is worth calling a Miracle and this would fall under second category : listen to his story and how the miracle made him go from atheism to theism..

https://www.youtube.com...
SubterFugitive
Posts: 255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2014 7:11:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/13/2014 4:46:54 PM, perplexed wrote:


Oh I see, so this is a political position not a philosophical one, I get ya haha. I personally have little interest in the political consequences of other religions since it is ubiquitous in any ideology (liberalism included) that folks use that dogma for their own gain and evil, that's no surprise. With the bare bones Christianity I gave you there is nothing but good. But of course folks will use this for doing evil. Just as bad things can be used to do good in the long run, so also the reverse is possible. That's not surprising at all.

right..so why would any one defend an ideology that is fallible?

Because there are good reasons for believing it that lack defeaters for them. My belief in the external physical world is fallible, I could be a brain in a vat being electrochemically stimulated to believe that I'm typing to you right now. Or I could be in the matrix. So my belief in the external world is fallible but yet I'm rational to hold to its existence given the absence of any defeaters for it, in short, there is no Morpheus handing me a blue and red pill.

I contend therefore that any belief you have is fallible apart from the belief that you are a thinking thing.

In fact I think it is a merit of Christianity that it is fallible, it can be falsified!


So your bent against religion is, as it were, a bent against the corruption of humanity, which is what Christ came to save us from.



not true...humanity is also good, not exclusively bad...

Yes, they are, the Christian doesn't deny that, but the argument is that they are not good enough. No one is good enough to fully reconcile themselves to a maximally perfect being on their own terms if they separate themselves from him, and that is what salvation is meant to restore.

so really christ actually came to die for himself as we see it in what the christian adherent says openly and as you just did...we are meaningless without jesus in us...so really, as it appears, we are discussing the traits of a narcissistic god here...which seems really human like as certain humans can posses that trait

You're either misunderstanding or maligning my words, I chose them carefully to stick with doctrine. Christ didn't die for himself, he died for the sake of those persons who want to reestablish communion with him.

Second, my claim wasn't that we are meaningless without Jesus in us. Rather it was that in the absence of a maximally great reality, God, then it is just not obvious is there is any ultimate meaning in life apart from subjective and relative meaning. It ultimately doesn't matter how you live IF atheism were true, wouldn't you agree?

Also, a person who dies for the sake of those who desire communion with him doesn't at all seem narcissistic, I know you want to stretch the Christian narrative in that way but it doesn't seem to go that way. For one God is a necessary being, he doesn't need our worship even though he is, by definition, worthy of all worship, for he is a supreme reality in himself. Rather it is US who are narcissistic, WE bear the blame of distancing ourselves from a supreme reality because WE are our own gods who fail to acknowledge who and what we really are. WE are the self-deceivers, not God. So I think your conception of God is simply too anthropomorphic, not the Christian's... (remember what I said earlier about whether or not you'll do theology good? ... right now you're attacking some theology that isn't Christianity.)


Then what sort of "subjective" do you mean?

based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions...

Oh so you mean SOLELY based on feelings, emotions, desires, etc. OK, then it's on you to show that theistic experiences are solely based on that, meaning we require some sort of defeater for the person's testimony, have one?
SubterFugitive
Posts: 255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2014 7:12:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/13/2014 5:16:15 PM, perplexed wrote:

Your signature: "theology is just an opinion based on conjecture"

What grounds do you have for believing that?
arielmessenger
Posts: 30
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2014 9:37:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Like I said, those without theistic experience have nothing authorative to add to this discussion. You can conjecture all you want but without real spiritual consciousness experience you won't know what you are talking about trying to make judgments about phenomena unfamiliar to you.