Validation through Experience

[Someday]

Commodore, Someday and Friendly Noodle Draws

The point I was saying was NOT to take away from a person believing in God

It was more of saying that I feel that Expriences can validate for a person their belief in God

But Experiences usually dont validate common bible interpretations about Jesus, Salvation, Hell

I understood that. I just wanted to talk a little about what Commodore said in response.

Blessings

[friendly hardline atheist]

Hello Someday, Commodore, Jon,

I think I agree with everyone fully or at least to a large degree. While I don't accept someones personal experience as convincing for me, it may be good enough for them and impossibly hard to disprove. And as long as these personal experiences don't make them do unpleasant things (this condition is easily violated , any degree to which I don't agree with Someday would stem from the practical consequences for others) we can live and let live.

greets,
Peter

[Commodore Angryy]

Hawkins.

A single proof that any miracle as ever taken place, please.

And prophecies, i admit there are some very convincing ones, and i'd like to hear the specific ones to which you refer.


Someday.
I am not using my arguments in trying to disprove God. I'm saying that there are alternate explanations for the 'shiver down the spine'. Now, obviously this person who was praying was already firm in their conviction that God exists, hence the prayer. A well placed shiver just sealed the deal, as they were already actively looking for affirmation. This could have come in any form. A shiver, a bird flying into a window but flying off, or relief from constapation. ANYTHING can be claimed as a work of god, or, to the reationalist mind, it could be cold, the bird might not be hurt, or the laxative just kicked in.

Not saying it wasn't god, just saying that if you try to use your experiential claims on others as an argument, they'll think you're bat**** insane.

[friendly hardline atheist]

Hi Someday,

While typing my previous post, your new one came up.

Originally Posted by Someday

The fact that experiences are different doesn't matter. This is like saying a large volume of trees are not a forest because all of the fauna is of different species. Each tree is unique, singular and individual. But the forest itself is the sum of this variety of individuals. I look at experiential testimony the same way. A certain amount of it may be colored by what we already believe or disbelieve.

I don't see why the trees analogy would be a valid one? Different types of trees can co-exist. I don't see how blatantly contradictory, mutually exclusive experiences could, if they are all are held to be true at the same time.

greets,
Peter

[Someday]

Originally Posted by friendly hardline atheist

Hi Someday,

While typing my previous post, your new one came up.



I don't see why the trees analogy would be a valid one? Different types of trees can co-exist. I don't see how blatantly contradictory, mutually exclusive experiences could, if they are all are held to be true at the same time.

greets,
Peter

Perhaps another bad analogy, I agree. But I think we cling to our own truth, so to speak as if it is the only possible truth. That's what makes this contradictory to begin with. I usually use the analogy of the blind men and the elephant story. This is a better analogy. I like to try and follow this when we are groping after something many have felt but have never seen.

Blessings

[Someday]

ANYTHING can be claimed as a work of god, or, to the reationalist mind, it could be cold, the bird might not be hurt, or the laxative just kicked in.

Do you believe theists are irrational then?

[Commodore Angryy]

Originally Posted by Someday

Do you believe theists are irrational then?

Fideists are irrational. Rationalists theists are not. There are SO many categories it's hard to describe. Basically, i don't think the assumption that the shiver came from an all powerful, knowing, loving, pervasive god, before all other avenues are explored and discounted.

You may know in your heart of hearts that it was god, then again, Mao knew in his heart of hearts that steel production was more important than growing food, resulting in the deaths of 300 million.

Nobody KNOWS anything.

[friendly hardline atheist]

Originally Posted by Someday

Perhaps another bad analogy, I agree. But I think we cling to our own truth, so to speak as if it is the only possible truth. That's what makes this contradictory to begin with. I usually use the analogy of the blind men and the elephant story. This is a better analogy. I like to try and follow this when we are groping after something many have felt but have never seen.

Sorry, but I'm going to dispute the validity of that analogy too.

The men only feel part of the elephant, the one who feels a tusk doesn't feel what the tusk leads to, i.e. the head, the side, etc. So if he were asked if he could make sure an elephant only consists of very hard-feeling ivory, he couldn't say so. He has only felt the ivory part of the elephant, but can't say that any other report has to be wrong.

Personal experiences by contrast, can be so conflicting that for one to be true, the other must be false. Take some members of a doomsday cult. One of the members (young, in good health) feels he/she should lead as long as possible a life of helping others as much as possible. The cult leader says he has seen that armageddon is upon the world, and they must leave the world through mass suicide before it's too late for their souls. Living a long life of good works and the urgent desire to commit suicide are mutually exclusive.

So I think the blind men and elephant analogy fails because it is about incomplete info while personal experiences can be about contradictory, mutually exclusive 'info'.

greets,
Peter

[friendly hardline atheist]

Originally Posted by Commodore Angryy

You may know in your heart of hearts that it was god, then again, Mao knew in his heart of hearts that steel production was more important than growing food, resulting in the deaths of 300 million.

Nobody KNOWS anything.

Duh! The ego-driven desire of a national leader to surpass another country (US in Maos case) in some metric and a philosophical question of when we know something for certain are issues that are miles apart.

And I think the famine in China killed dozens rather than hundreds of millions.

Sorry, but a piss poor post I think. Feel free to correct me if you think I had it wrong.

Peter

[Someday]

So I think the blind men and elephant analogy fails because it is about incomplete info while personal experiences can be about contradictory, mutually exclusive 'info'.

I take it quite differently. Personal experiences are a perfect example of incomplete info. I agree that on the surface, a person can make their experience mutually exclusive with another's. This is based on only seeing their own experience as valid, and not piecing more of the info together. If each experience is likened to a part of an elephant, a small part of the greater whole, I am of the belief that we can see a bigger picture of those experiences. Instead, what we do is cling to our own experience and become biased towards every experience that conflicts with it. You may say an elephant is like a thick tree trunk and we should cut it down for making a structure. I may oppose you because it is clearly a wall that we should perhaps improve upon, but leave in place. Another may have felt the trunk is a limb that we should burn to keep us warm and cook our food.
Experience of God is like that when seen individually. It's piecing all of this together that should be the goal, not accenting the differences.

Blessings