Notices
Results 1 to 74 of 74

Thread: How do you know if I am lying?

  1. #1 How do you know if I am lying? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    326
    This is just a question to get everyone thinking on how they verify things pertaining to religion, regardless whether one is an atheist or theist

    If I said I have seen god how, would you know if I was lying?

    If I said I have seen god, how would you know if I was saying the truth?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2 Re: How do you know if I am lying? 
    Forum Masters Degree geezer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    london
    Posts
    540
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    If I said I have seen god how, would you know if I was lying?
    If I said I have seen god, how would you know if I was saying the truth?
    to either question, you could not be sure, because your asking everybody to believe, that which is purely subjective to you, so without you producing further evidence, your at a impass.
    it is unreasonable to take your word for it, without further evidence, but having said that, it would be wrong to call you a liar.


    "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense - Buddha"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Time Lord zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    6,041
    Does seeing Him in a dream or a drug induced state make any difference?
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4 Re: How do you know if I am lying? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    326
    Quote Originally Posted by geezer
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    If I said I have seen god how, would you know if I was lying?
    If I said I have seen god, how would you know if I was saying the truth?
    to either question, you could not be sure, because your asking everybody to believe, that which is purely subjective to you, so without you producing further evidence, your at a impass.
    it is unreasonable to take your word for it, without further evidence, but having said that, it would be wrong to call you a liar.
    then I guess the next question is how do you know that the highest perception of god is a subjective one (if you have positive proof that god is not objective, you would have a leg to stand on)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5 Re: How do you know if I am lying? 
    Forum Masters Degree geezer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    london
    Posts
    540
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    then I guess the next question is how do you know that the highest perception of god is a subjective one
    because at this moment, ( and I say that, only because it's impossible to do a complete check of the universe ) it would be infantile without further qualifying criteria, to have a belief in a creature, you have no evidence for, you may as well believe in a pink unicorn or the flying spaghetti monster, they have as much crediblity.
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    (if you have positive proof that god is not objective, you would have a leg to stand on)
    if I had positive proof that the pink unicorn is not objective, I would have a leg to stand on there too, wouldn't I.
    there is no way of knowing for sure, without doing a complete check of the universe, whether there is a pink unicorn or a flying spaghetti monster, it would be infantile without further qualifying criteria, to have a belief in a creature, you have no evidence for, wouldn't it.
    "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense - Buddha"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6 Re: How do you know if I am lying? 
    Forum Sophomore scientist-to-be's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cairo, Egypt
    Posts
    124
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    This is just a question to get everyone thinking on how they verify things pertaining to religion, regardless whether one is an atheist or theist

    If I said I have seen god how, would you know if I was lying?

    If I said I have seen god, how would you know if I was saying the truth?
    how about, use a polygraph?
    In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, however, there is.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7 Re: How do you know if I am lying? 
    Forum Masters Degree geezer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    london
    Posts
    540
    Quote Originally Posted by scientist-to-be
    how about, use a polygraph?
    that is a pretty damn stupid reply.
    if the man believes with all his heart he saw god, he's not going to give of the same impulse's as if he was lying, because in his mind it's the truth.
    "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense - Buddha"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Sophomore scientist-to-be's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cairo, Egypt
    Posts
    124
    If a man truly believes that he did, then he wouldn't be lying!
    Let me remind of the definition of a lie. According to my dictionary, a lie is:
    n.
    1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
    2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.
    In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, however, there is.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9 Re: How do you know if I am lying? 
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    "Jamerica"...When in America, Florida; when in Jamaica, St. Mary
    Posts
    959
    Quote Originally Posted by geezer
    Quote Originally Posted by scientist-to-be
    how about, use a polygraph?
    that is a pretty damn stupid reply.
    if the man believes with all his heart he saw god, he's not going to give of the same impulse's as if he was lying, because in his mind it's the truth.
    Boy, you really suck at picking up sarcasm.
    Whence comes this logic: no evidence = false?

    http://www.atheistthinktank.net/thinktank/index.php

    Theists welcome.
    ___________
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10 Re: How do you know if I am lying? 
    Forum Masters Degree geezer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    london
    Posts
    540
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    Quote Originally Posted by geezer
    Quote Originally Posted by scientist-to-be
    how about, use a polygraph?
    that is a pretty damn stupid reply.
    if the man believes with all his heart he saw god, he's not going to give of the same impulse's as if he was lying, because in his mind it's the truth.
    Boy, you really suck at picking up sarcasm.
    good ain't it.
    "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense - Buddha"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11 Re: How do you know if I am lying? 
    Forum Sophomore scientist-to-be's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cairo, Egypt
    Posts
    124
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    Boy, you really suck at picking up sarcasm.
    Thanks, bro! You said it!
    In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, however, there is.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12 Re: How do you know if I am lying? 
    Forum Masters Degree geezer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    london
    Posts
    540
    Quote Originally Posted by scientist-to-be
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    Boy, you really suck at picking up sarcasm.
    Thanks, bro! You said it!
    if it was sarcasm you would not have felt the need to reply like this,
    Quote Originally Posted by scientist-to-be
    If a man truly believes that he did, then he wouldn't be lying!
    Let me remind of the definition of a lie. According to my dictionary, a lie is:
    n.
    1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
    2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.
    you would have said I was being sarcastic.

    especially as you were just repeating what I said,
    Quote Originally Posted by geezer
    that is a pretty damn stupid reply.
    if the man believes with all his heart he saw god, he's not going to give off the same impulse's as if he was lying, because in his mind it's the truth.
    "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense - Buddha"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Sophomore scientist-to-be's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cairo, Egypt
    Posts
    124
    It was actually sarcasm, but since I realised it was so difficult for you to understand, I decided maybe I should explain...
    anyway, this is way too childish to bother with...look, just pretend I never posted that reply if it gives you such a hard time.
    In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, however, there is.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14 Re: How do you know if I am lying? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    326
    Quote Originally Posted by geezer
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    then I guess the next question is how do you know that the highest perception of god is a subjective one
    because at this moment, ( and I say that, only because it's impossible to do a complete check of the universe ) it would be infantile without further qualifying criteria, to have a belief in a creature, you have no evidence for, you may as well believe in a pink unicorn or the flying spaghetti monster, they have as much crediblity.
    actually even if you could do a check of the entire universe it would be fruitless unless you had a clear idea what you were looking for . After all, the search for evidence is qualified by definitions (at least in the case of a pink unicorn you have two descriptions to go by) - what would be the qualifying criteria for god's nature?

    [/quote]
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15 Re: How do you know if I am lying? 
    Forum Masters Degree geezer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    london
    Posts
    540
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    actually even if you could do a check of the entire universe it would be fruitless
    agreed.
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    unless you had a clear idea what you were looking for. After all, the search for evidence is qualified by definitions (at least in the case of a pink unicorn you have two descriptions to go by)
    you might be lucky and find a unicorn, even with two definitions, the flying spaghetti monster has three, should be much easier, to find, anything's possible -
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    what would be the qualifying criteria for god's nature?
    I wouldn't have any idea, other than the dictionary definition of a god, it would be on the theist head to provide that data.
    but with the extreme lack of evidence, they have an enormous task.

    hence why, it is unreasonable to have a belief in a god.

    it is purely subjective, having said that, if believing in a god, makes you happy, then all power too you, but it will remain subjective, until evidence is shown, one exists.
    "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense - Buddha"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16 Re: How do you know if I am lying? 
    Forum Sophomore basim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    maldives
    Posts
    138
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    This is just a question to get everyone thinking on how they verify things pertaining to religion, regardless whether one is an atheist or theist

    If I said I have seen god how, would you know if I was lying?

    If I said I have seen god, how would you know if I was saying the truth?
    by the logic.

    you are a creature of God. your eye can detect only electromagnetic radiation of a certain frequency. Did you know that even Light is created by God? so how can you see the God.

    you are living in this four dimensional space. you can see the things inside this four dimensions. God created you and the space. Do you think that the God needs a four dimensional space to survive? (Auz billah)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    716
    basim wrote:

    Did you know that even Light is created by God?
    Which light? flashlight is generated by batteries. Sunlight is created by fusion. Neon light is created by excitation.

    The bible stated: and God said 'Let there be light', and there was light. Now human can do that too. Voice-activated switch is quite common now.

    Do you think that the God needs a four dimensional space to survive?
    No. He needs only childish imagination to survive.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18 Re: How do you know if I am lying? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    326
    Geezer

    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    what would be the qualifying criteria for god's nature?
    I wouldn't have any idea, other than the dictionary definition of a god, it would be on the theist head to provide that data.
    well thats interesting, since if you go by the dictionary definition of god (omnipresent, omniscient, etc) you end up with an entity that is beyond matter (ie transcendental) -
    but with the extreme lack of evidence, they have an enormous task.
    if there was empirical evidence for god it would be a contradiction, unless you can explain how one could empirically determine the nature of something omnipresent, infinite, etc

    hence why, it is unreasonable to have a belief in a god.
    or alternatively, why it is unreasonable to believe god can be perceived empirically
    it is purely subjective,
    it would be if you could establish how empiricism has the monopoly of objectivity - kind of difficult considering how fallible our senses are (for instance a lusty person enters a room full of women and assumes that they all find him sexually attractive, which of course may not be the case)

    having said that, if believing in a god, makes you happy, then all power too you, but it will remain subjective, until evidence is shown, one exists.
    unless you clear up the above issues, this statement remains an oxymoron ("Prove that an infinite/omnipresent substance exists empirically")[/quote]
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19 Re: How do you know if I am lying? 
    Forum Masters Degree geezer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    london
    Posts
    540
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    Geezer

    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    what would be the qualifying criteria for god's nature?
    I wouldn't have any idea, other than the dictionary definition of a god, it would be on the theist head to provide that data.
    well thats interesting, since if you go by the dictionary definition of god (omnipresent, omniscient, etc) you end up with an entity that is beyond matter (ie transcendental)
    that faith based religions assumptive definition, what dictionaries are you using? they will only qualify gods in regard to religion.
    your statement is pure assumption, you first have to prove gods exist before you can jump to gods being anything else.
    but with the extreme lack of evidence, they have an enormous task.
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    [color="blue"if there was empirical evidence for god it would be a contradiction, unless you can explain how one could empirically determine the nature of something omnipresent, infinite, etc
    you are using your assumption, to qualify your statement, you need to show that gods exist, to even give gods this omnipresent/omniscient label.
    and as I said as they are purely subjective you will have a hard job trying.
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    hence why, it is unreasonable to have a belief in a god.
    or alternatively, why it is unreasonable to believe god can be perceived empirically
    well, because it cant be perceived empirically, thus it remains subjective, subjective beliefs are not evidence.
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    it is purely subjective,
    it would be if you could establish how empiricism has the monopoly of objectivity
    well at the moment it's all we have and until something else comes along, it's the only way we can determine, existence.
    so the onus must remain with the believer.

    Proving Existence or Non-Existence.

    The existence of a thing can be conclusively proved by producing one single instance of the thing.
    To put that another way: -
    When the existence of a thing is denied, This can be proven wrong by producing one single instance of the thing said not to exist
    The non-existence of a thing can never be conclusively proved because there is always the theoretical assumption that the thing exists but has not been seen yet or it exists in a place that can not be visited. Unless all places in the universe have been visited and are being constantly observed, we can not be absolutely certain.
    From this we can say that there are only two possible statements we can make about the existence of a thing:
    The thing exists.
    It is unknown if the thing exists or not.

    It is not possible to prove that a thing "does not exist" without further qualifying criteria.
    If a thing does NOT exist it can not leave any evidence of it's non-existence. Only things that DO exist can leave evidence. From this we can derive that conclusive proof can only come from the person that claims that a thing exists. It is nonsensical to demand proof of non-existence.
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    kind of difficult considering how fallible our senses are (for instance a lusty person enters a room full of women and assumes that they all find him sexually attractive, which of course may not be the case)
    not really, you could say a religious person enters a room full of people and assumes they all find him righteous. but your point here being?
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    having said that, if believing in a god, makes you happy, then all power too you, but it will remain subjective, until evidence is shown, one exists.
    unless you clear up the above issues, this statement remains an oxymoron ("Prove that an infinite/omnipresent substance exists empirically")
    that job is for believers in gods, of which I'm not.
    "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense - Buddha"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20 Re: How do you know if I am lying? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    326
    Quote Originally Posted by geezer
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    Geezer

    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    what would be the qualifying criteria for god's nature?
    I wouldn't have any idea, other than the dictionary definition of a god, it would be on the theist head to provide that data.
    well thats interesting, since if you go by the dictionary definition of god (omnipresent, omniscient, etc) you end up with an entity that is beyond matter (ie transcendental)
    that faith based religions assumptive definition, what dictionaries are you using? they will only qualify gods in regard to religion.
    why do you call religion faith based, since practically all of them are initiated by claims of direct perception
    btw - how do you qualify god without reference to religion (what dictionary are you using?)

    your statement is pure assumption, you first have to prove gods exist before you can jump to gods being anything else.
    actually first you have to establish what is the article in mention. Would it be possible to determine if there is water in the desert if one didn't know what exactly water was?

    but with the extreme lack of evidence, they have an enormous task.
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    [color="blue"if there was empirical evidence for god it would be a contradiction, unless you can explain how one could empirically determine the nature of something omnipresent, infinite, etc
    you are using your assumption, to qualify your statement, you need to show that gods exist, to even give gods this omnipresent/omniscient label.
    well those are the qualities of god - not sure what you are trying to get at, unless you have another series of qualities in regard to god (could you say that one needs to qualify that water exists and that it is an assumption to define it as wet, soothing to drink, etc?)


    and as I said as they are purely subjective you will have a hard job trying.
    is water subjective?

    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    hence why, it is unreasonable to have a belief in a god.
    or alternatively, why it is unreasonable to believe god can be perceived empirically
    well, because it cant be perceived empirically, thus it remains subjective, subjective beliefs are not evidence.
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    it is purely subjective,
    it would be if you could establish how empiricism has the monopoly of objectivity
    well at the moment it's all we have and until something else comes along, it's the only way we can determine, existence.
    so the onus must remain with the believer.
    so what of your mind, intelligence and ego - they certainly aren't established empirically
    certainly no problem having a subjective experience of an objective phenomena
    Proving Existence or Non-Existence.

    The existence of a thing can be conclusively proved by producing one single instance of the thing.

    to who?
    Provide an example
    To put that another way: -
    When the existence of a thing is denied, This can be proven wrong by producing one single instance of the thing said not to exist
    once again, to who?

    The non-existence of a thing can never be conclusively proved because there is always the theoretical assumption that the thing exists but has not been seen yet or it exists in a place that can not be visited. Unless all places in the universe have been visited and are being constantly observed, we can not be absolutely certain.
    From this we can say that there are only two possible statements we can make about the existence of a thing:
    The thing exists.
    It is unknown if the thing exists or not.
    my issue is that there is a variegated span of knowledge - for instance for the man who takes out the rubbish, somethings are known and unknown and for the man who is working in nanotechnology a great deal more is known and a great deal less is unknown (or perhaps it is more correct to say that a great deal more is unknown, since that is the nature of empirical advancement)

    It is not possible to prove that a thing "does not exist" without further qualifying criteria.
    thats why I qualified god as omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient

    If a thing does NOT exist it can not leave any evidence of it's non-existence. Only things that DO exist can leave evidence.
    thus god is evident to the person who properly applies religious principles (and is not evident to the person who does not)

    From this we can derive that conclusive proof can only come from the person that claims that a thing exists.
    even a nano-scientist has the monopoly on nanotechnology - at least in regards to the dumpster man
    It is nonsensical to demand proof of non-existence.
    therefore it is not the theists claim that god is non-existent, although it is the claim that he is not revealed by empiricism (since that obviously contradicts his transcendental nature)
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    kind of difficult considering how fallible our senses are (for instance a lusty person enters a room full of women and assumes that they all find him sexually attractive, which of course may not be the case)
    not really, you could say a religious person enters a room full of people and assumes they all find him righteous.
    then it indicates the religious person is not free of the subtle contaminations of lust, namely pride and distinction
    but your point here being?
    higher than empiricism is consciousness, since consciousness (particularly the contaminations of consciousness, namely greed, lust etc) shapes the relevance of empirical observation - and interestingly enough that is the recommended process of religion, namely that one purifies one's consciousness, getting free from lust, anger, etc and in that state they become qualified to perceive god, much like a scientist becomes qualified to examine the intricacies of the microscopic world by applying a process that the garbage man has not
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    having said that, if believing in a god, makes you happy, then all power too you, but it will remain subjective, until evidence is shown, one exists.
    unless you clear up the above issues, this statement remains an oxymoron ("Prove that an infinite/omnipresent substance exists empirically")
    that job is for believers in gods, of which I'm not.
    that means that the theist has a duty to get free from the influence of lust/wrath/greed etc
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21 Re: How do you know if I am lying? 
    Forum Masters Degree geezer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    london
    Posts
    540
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    why do you call religion faith based, since practically all of them are initiated by claims of direct perception
    I've have direct perception, of winnie the pooh, does that make him real, it's a logical fallacy.
    how do you know these people were not imagining it. where is the evidence for this said perception you only have their word.
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    btw - how do you qualify god without reference to religion (what dictionary are you using?)
    you dont. and all dictionaries.
    go here http://www.onelook.com/
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    actually first you have to establish what is the article in mention. Would it be possible to determine if there is water in the desert if one didn't know what exactly water was?
    water a stupid question, there's no comparison with a god.
    we know water exist, regardless of knowing what it might be called, once we searched and found it we can make an educated guess that this must be water because it's different from sand, we cant do that with a imaginary god.
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    well those are the qualities of god - not sure what you are trying to get at,
    they are assumed qualities of gods, you have to show gods existed, you have no way of knowing, unless you can show gods are real.
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    unless you have another series of qualities in regard to god (could you say that one needs to qualify that water exists and that it is an assumption to define it as wet, soothing to drink, etc?)
    gods are subjective imaginary things, water however exist without it we would die. thus it would not be an assumption to define as wet, you can define in any way you wish, it still exists, you can define gods anyway you wish, but they remain imaginary.
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    so what of your mind, intelligence and ego - they certainly aren't established empirically
    there IS evidence for the mind, intelligence and ego. We display it whenever we are "conscious".
    We also know that it's core functioning is limited to the brain: remove brain from a patient - remove consciousness.
    We also have evidence of its materiality: damage brain - damage consciousness.
    Inhibit certain chemicals in brain - inhibit consciousness.
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    certainly no problem having a subjective experience of an objective phenomena
    yes we can do both but most of us know whats real and whats not, we dont let our subjective minds rule our objective minds, dont you think it's better the other way round, objective ruling the subjective.
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    my issue is that there is a variegated span of knowledge - for instance for the man who takes out the rubbish, somethings are known and unknown and for the man who is working in nanotechnology a great deal more is known and a great deal less is unknown (or perhaps it is more correct to say that a great deal more is unknown, since that is the nature of empirical advancement)
    but it is infantile to label the unknown with a god did it sticker, isn't it.
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    thats why I qualified god as omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient
    but you didn't qualify anything, you assumed.
    I could say that winnie the pooh is omnipotent, omnipresent, now he's been qualified, it doesn't mean a thing, without back up evidence.
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    thus god is evident to the person who properly applies religious principles (and is not evident to the person who does not)
    no without evidence god is subjective, to both parties, however the religious like to think of gods as real, thats why the onus is on them to show that they are.
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    even a nano-scientist has the monopoly on nanotechnology - at least in regards to the dumpster man
    but only because the dumpster guy isn't informed, once informed he is of equal par as the nanotechnologist, your point is.
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    therefore it is not the theists claim that god is non-existent, although it is the claim that he is not revealed by empiricism (since that obviously contradicts his transcendental nature)
    it's assumed transcendental nature.
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    higher than empiricism is consciousness, since consciousness (particularly the contaminations of consciousness, namely greed, lust etc) shapes the relevance of empirical observation - and interestingly enough that is the recommended process of religion, namely that one purifies one's consciousness, getting free from lust, anger, etc and in that state they become qualified to perceive god, much like a scientist becomes qualified to examine the intricacies of the microscopic world by applying a process that the garbage man has not
    Logical Fallacies abound within this example, I'm afraid. your conclusions are all making positive statements - which are logically flawed in the absence of evidence (your assumption).
    "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense - Buddha"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22 Re: How do you know if I am lying? 
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    209
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    This is just a question to get everyone thinking on how they verify things pertaining to religion, regardless whether one is an atheist or theist

    If I said I have seen god how, would you know if I was lying?

    If I said I have seen god, how would you know if I was saying the truth?

    Ok let me tell you something. Know one can see God. Only when you get to heaven. God sends angles to send his message to you. It says in the Word Of God or you call it bible that You can only see his back not his face. Why? If you see his face then you will die. And like i said you can't see God untile you go to heaven.
    You atheist are are always denying the truth and don't want to here the truth its like you closing your ears.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    716
    That is your belief, without evidence, without reasons.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    209
    Quote Originally Posted by prasit
    That is your belief, without evidence, without reasons.
    Our you talking about me?
    You atheist are are always denying the truth and don't want to here the truth its like you closing your ears.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    716
    Yes. Your statement
    Only when you get to heaven. God sends angles to send his message to you. It says in the Word Of God or you call it bible that You can only see his back not his face. Why? If you see his face then you will die.
    is just what you think. No proof. No evidence.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    209
    Quote Originally Posted by prasit
    Yes. Your statement
    Only when you get to heaven. God sends angles to send his message to you. It says in the Word Of God or you call it bible that You can only see his back not his face. Why? If you see his face then you will die.
    is just what you think. No proof. No evidence.
    Ok show me proof that the big bang happened? You weren't there your just guessing thats all. You just don't want to admit there is a God so you became a evolutionist. Prove that the big bang happened. Give me proof if you can
    You atheist are are always denying the truth and don't want to here the truth its like you closing your ears.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27 Re: How do you know if I am lying? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    326
    Quote Originally Posted by Ezra
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    This is just a question to get everyone thinking on how they verify things pertaining to religion, regardless whether one is an atheist or theist

    If I said I have seen god how, would you know if I was lying?

    If I said I have seen god, how would you know if I was saying the truth?

    Ok let me tell you something. Know one can see God.
    why not?

    Only when you get to heaven.
    if god is omnipotent and omnipresent, why can he only reside in heaven?

    God sends angles to send his message to you.
    if god is fully independant and potent, why does he rely on angels? - Why is it that angels can do things that god cannot?

    It says in the Word Of God or you call it bible that You can only see his back not his face.
    so you can see god after all (albeit the back)?

    Why? If you see his face then you will die. And like i said you can't see God untile you go to heaven.
    why would seeing god's face cause one to die? (and how would you know this unless god came to our sphere in the first place?)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28 Re: How do you know if I am lying? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    326
    Quote Originally Posted by geezer
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    why do you call religion faith based, since practically all of them are initiated by claims of direct perception
    I've have direct perception, of winnie the pooh, does that make him real, it's a logical fallacy.
    I guess the test would be whether you can also bring others to the point of direct perception


    how do you know these people were not imagining it. where is the
    evidence for this said perception you only have their word.
    actually you also have their instructions on what is to be done and not done to achieve their given state

    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    btw - how do you qualify god without reference to religion (what dictionary are you using?)
    you dont. and all dictionaries.
    go here http://www.onelook.com/
    so you think that defining god as omnimax is not the standard definition of scripture nor a commonly acceptable one by the dictionary?
    :?

    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    actually first you have to establish what is the article in mention. Would it be possible to determine if there is water in the desert if one didn't know what exactly water was?
    water a stupid question, there's no comparison with a god.
    we know water exist, regardless of knowing what it might be called, once we searched and found it we can make an educated guess that this must be water because it's different from sand, we cant do that with a imaginary god.
    you miss the point - there is no question of searching for water unless one knows what it is (of course it is a stupid example - but its the purpose of analogy to work with an (obviously) known thing to illustrate the requirements for an unknown thing) - in the same way, there is no question of searching for god unless there is some theory to start the ball rolling (due to a lack of theory, nobody was searching for dna 250 years ago)

    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    well those are the qualities of god - not sure what you are trying to get at,
    they are assumed qualities of gods, you have to show gods existed, you have no way of knowing, unless you can show gods are real.
    one step at a time - for a start if you examine those qualities it would indicate the futility of the empirical (human senses) and rational (human logic) methods - in scripture however you find the recommendation of purifying the consciousness (freedom of sin - lust, wrath etc) as the recommended process
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    unless you have another series of qualities in regard to god (could you say that one needs to qualify that water exists and that it is an assumption to define it as wet, soothing to drink, etc?)
    gods are subjective imaginary things,
    that hasn't been established yet - so far we have (hopefully I think??) established that there are certain persons who lay claim to god having certain qualities (which make empricism and rationalism null as a means of perception) and also certain processes (free from lust etc) as an initial means of verifying

    water however exist without it we would die.
    once again - its an analogy - its the nature of analogy to be limited since it is required that they work with known things
    thus it would not be an assumption to define as wet, you can define in any way you wish, it still exists, you can define gods anyway you wish, but they remain imaginary.
    on the contrary, if you defined water as gritty and tar tasting it would be an incorrect definition. Similarly if you define god in a way that he isn't, apply a process that is not recommended as valid to perceive him, and conclude that he is thus imaginary, it simply illustrates the wrong theory and the wrong practice
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    so what of your mind, intelligence and ego - they certainly aren't established empirically
    there IS evidence for the mind, intelligence and ego. We display it whenever we are "conscious".
    that fundamental nature of consciousness however does not fall withinthe folds of either empiricism or rationalism

    We also know that it's core functioning is limited to the brain: remove brain from a patient - remove consciousness.
    to establish that something is the cause of an effect, it is required that it be introduced where it absent. So to establish that the brain is the cause of consciousness you would have to show how by adding a brain to a dead man he regains life

    We also have evidence of its materiality: damage brain - damage consciousness.
    brain damage is something else, since it affects the functioning of a person, but not the qualitative nature of consciousness (after all, they're still alive)


    Inhibit certain chemicals in brain - inhibit consciousness
    if those same chemicals don't bring life back to a dead person it indicate sthat one is merely toying with the chemicals that consciousness utilizes rather than consciousness itself

    .
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    certainly no problem having a subjective experience of an objective phenomena
    yes we can do both but most of us know whats real and whats not, we dont let our subjective minds rule our objective minds, dont you think it's better the other way round, objective ruling the subjective.
    certainly
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    my issue is that there is a variegated span of knowledge - for instance for the man who takes out the rubbish, somethings are known and unknown and for the man who is working in nanotechnology a great deal more is known and a great deal less is unknown (or perhaps it is more correct to say that a great deal more is unknown, since that is the nature of empirical advancement)
    but it is infantile to label the unknown with a god did it sticker, isn't it.
    actually I am talking about something else at the moment (the issue you are raising is dealt with earlier, namely coming to the path that enables one to come to the position that god exists, rather than accepting his position by default)
    What I am talking about here is that when you talk of evidence, any evidence, there is a variegated field of knowledge,as indicated by the scientist and the dumpster man - what is evident to them both is not the same, even if they come before the same body of evidence - similarly the evidence for perceiving god depends on training of a sort
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    thats why I qualified god as omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient
    but you didn't qualify anything, you assumed.
    I could say that winnie the pooh is omnipotent, omnipresent, now he's been qualified, it doesn't mean a thing, without back up evidence
    a scientist also qualifies the terms of their findings or even hypotheses,, but unless one is geared up in the 'training', it won't mean much. what to speak of the evidence of their findings - theory is ground base and unless you accept it there is no question of application and no question of evidence (in any field of knowledge)

    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    thus god is evident to the person who properly applies religious principles (and is not evident to the person who does not)
    no without evidence god is subjective, to both parties, however the religious like to think of gods as real, thats why the onus is on them to show that they are.
    if a person is after evidence, the onus is on them to apply the process - thus the distance between the dumpster man and the scientist can be negotiated

    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    even a nano-scientist has the monopoly on nanotechnology - at least in regards to the dumpster man
    but only because the dumpster guy isn't informed, once informed he is of equal par as the nanotechnologist, your point is.
    if he is not 'informed' (ie trained) he remains a dumpster man eternally

    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    therefore it is not the theists claim that god is non-existent, although it is the claim that he is not revealed by empiricism (since that obviously contradicts his transcendental nature)
    it's assumed transcendental nature.
    assuming you are not 'informed' , yes


    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    higher than empiricism is consciousness, since consciousness (particularly the contaminations of consciousness, namely greed, lust etc) shapes the relevance of empirical observation - and interestingly enough that is the recommended process of religion, namely that one purifies one's consciousness, getting free from lust, anger, etc and in that state they become qualified to perceive god, much like a scientist becomes qualified to examine the intricacies of the microscopic world by applying a process that the garbage man has not
    Logical Fallacies abound within this example, I'm afraid. your conclusions are all making positive statements - which are logically flawed in the absence of evidence (your assumption).
    there are also identical positive statements in the claim (to an 'uninformed' dumpster man) that by studying the theoretical foundations of physics and chemistry (or alternatively, by endeavoring to be free from the contaminations of consciousness, namely lust, wrath etc) he can be sufficiently qualified to gain entrance into further education in university (or alternatively , one can begin the process of coming to the point of directly perceiving god's nature) and thus come to the point of direct perception of nanoscience (or alternatively, one can come to the point of validating god's existence)

    if you can pull out logical fallacies on how the dumpster man can become a nanoscientist, you can apply the same points to indicate the logical fallacies of how a person can perceive the evidence for god

    If you cannot do that there are no logical fallacies - at a guess though I think you mean to say that I am not truthful, since even the following statement is logical - "Since all apples taste and look like oranges one can make apple juice with oranges"

    If you think I am not truthful, it certainly requires a logical argument (namely premises) on your behalf to indicate why it is so .....
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29 Re: How do you know if I am lying? 
    Forum Masters Degree geezer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    london
    Posts
    540
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    actually you also have their instructions on what is to be done and not done to achieve their given state
    complete irrelevant, instructions on how to imagine it, isn't evidence.
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    so you think that defining god as omnimax is not the standard definition of scripture nor a commonly acceptable one by the dictionary?
    :?
    never said that, I said you dont, meaning, you dont qualify god without reference to religion, the commonly accepted definition
    by dictionaries, is what the scriptures say a god should be defined as.
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    you miss the point - there is no question
    of searching for water unless one knows what it is (of course it is a stupid example - but its the purpose of analogy to work with an
    (obviously) known thing to illustrate the requirements for an unknown thing) - in the same way, there is no question of searching for god
    unless there is some theory to start the ball rolling (due to a lack of theory, nobody was searching for dna 250 years ago)
    but you
    haven't establish the requirements for a unknown thing, yes in the future there might be a god that shows itself, but until then it must it
    remains purely subjective. because with out other qualifing evidence it is infantile to believe a god did it scenerio, also DNA still existed
    250 years ago, the more we educate ourselves the more, we dismiss fantasy.
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    one step at a time - for a start if you examine those qualities it would indicate the futility of the empirical (human senses)
    how
    so?
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    and rational (human logic) methods - in scripture however you find the recommendation of purifying the
    consciousness (freedom of sin - lust, wrath etc) as the recommended process
    the bible is just a book, the religious refer to the
    contents as scripture but this is not evidence, however for the wont of an arguement. so you lock youself away and starve yourself of
    outside stimuli, until you start to imagine things and have hullcinations, yeh that sounds about right, then I suppose you get direct
    perception.
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    that hasn't been established yet - so far we have (hopefully I think??) established that there are certain persons who lay claim to god having certain qualities
    irrelevant, having a claim and having proof are worlds apart, thus until a god shows itself it can only be deemed imaginary.
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    (which make empricism and rationalism null as a means of perception)
    how so?
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    and also certain processes (free from lust etc) as an initial means of verifying
    how so?
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    on the contrary, if you defined water as gritty and tar tasting it would be an incorrect definition.
    maybe so, however as in your analogy the person has no knowledge of water he can define it pink with yellow balloons in the definition, is irrelevant.
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    Similarly if you define god in a way that he isn't, apply a process that is not recommended as valid to perceive him, and conclude that he is thus imaginary, it simply illustrates the wrong theory and the wrong practice
    how so? you can define something you have no prove for, anyway you wish, until you can show a prove, and thus define it, has it is.
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    that fundamental nature of consciousness however does not fall within the folds of either empiricism or rationalism
    please explain.
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    ]to establish that something is the cause of an effect, it is required that it be introduced where it absent. So to establish that the brain is the cause of consciousness you would have to show how by adding a brain to a dead man he regains life
    never said the brain was the conscious, just without the brain the conscious in gone.
    are we refering to a living brain or a dead brain, because one would be pointless if we remove the brain the man dies and the brain dies. if
    we kept the body alive, and it was possible in medical science to connect all the nerve ending, and the spinal cord, then theoretically we
    could reanimate a body by placing a living brain in it, just like we can do heart transplants, in the future, we should be able to do brain
    transplants, now if we put a dead brain into a dead body nothing would happen as the conscious/the electrical sparks the jump from
    neuron to neuron are dead. the conscious has left the building.
    so with your logic we should be able to introduce god where it's absent to see if it is the cause of the universe, oops I forgot we
    cant.
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    brain damage is something else, since it affects the functioning of a person, but not the qualitative nature of consciousness (after all, they're still alive)
    so they remain the same person and function just the same do they, oh I see.
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    ]if those same chemicals don't bring life back to a dead person it indicate that one is merely toying with the chemicals that consciousness utilizes rather than consciousness itself
    so please feel free to establish where the conscious is when a person is dead, if you can establish that, then putting it back into a dead person should
    be easy, because it was in the brain whilst the brain was alive but when one dies so does the other.
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    actually I am talking about something else at the moment (the issue you are raising is dealt with earlier, namely coming to the path that
    enables one to come to the position that god exists, rather than accepting his position by default)
    without evidence how else
    does the religious person, he can only accept the default position/faith. there is no other.
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    What I am talking about here is that when you talk of evidence, any evidence, there is a variegated field of knowledge,
    where.
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    as indicated by the scientist and the dumpster man
    all you done here is show that one is aledgedly
    more educated than the other, but faced with the same problems they are on equal par
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    what is evident to them
    both is not the same, even if they come before the same body of evidence
    how so?
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    similarly the evidence
    for perceiving god depends on training of a sort
    why?
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    a scientist also qualifies the terms of their findings or even hypotheses,, but unless one is geared up in the 'training', it won't mean much. what to speak of the evidence of their findings - theory is ground base and unless you accept it there is no question of
    application and no question of evidence (in any field of knowledge)
    ah but there is all science is falsifiable, it gets tested and
    retested, to establish it as fact.
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    if a person is after evidence, the onus is on them to apply the process
    and how do they come by this process of finding evidence
    for a god become delusional I presume. no man the onus must remain with him who asserts a
    thing.
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    assuming you are not 'informed' , yes
    but you've yet to establish how you become informed, without qualifiable evidence it's just hear say.[quote="punarmusiko"][quote]
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    there are also identical positive statements in the claim (to an 'uninformed' dumpster
    man) that by studying the theoretical foundations of physics and chemistry (or alternatively, by endeavoring to be free from the
    contaminations of consciousness, namely lust, wrath etc) he can be sufficiently qualified to gain entrance into further education in
    university (or alternatively , one can begin the process of coming to the point of directly perceiving god's nature)
    how without the
    evidence to show it exist you cant perceive it.
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    and thus come to the point of direct perception of nanoscience (or
    alternatively, one can come to the point of validating god's existence)
    but you need one instant of existence to establish that.
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    if you can pull out logical fallacies on how the dumpster man can become a nanoscientist, you can apply the same points to indicate the logical fallacies of how a person can perceive the evidence for god If you cannot do that there are no logical fallacies - at a guess though I think you mean to say that I am not truthful, since even the following statement is logical - "Since all apples taste and look like oranges one can make apple juice with oranges" If you think I am not truthful, it certainly requires a logical argument (namely premises) on your behalf to indicate why it is so .....
    I dont think your lying, because you believe your telling the truth, your just ignorant of the real truth, so the truth you have will suffice.
    "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense - Buddha"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30 Re: How do you know if I am lying? 
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    209
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    if god is omnipotent and omnipresent, why can he only reside in heaven?
    He made the earth and he can see us down from heaven.

    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    if god is fully independant and potent, why does he rely on angels? - Why is it that angels can do things that god cannot?
    Your getting all mixed up. I said that God sends angles to send his message but if God comes and they see his face they die. Can't you understand that?


    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    so you can see god after all (albeit the back)?
    Thats only if you go to heaven


    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    why would seeing god's face cause one to die? (and how would you know this unless god came to our sphere in the first place?)
    The bible says it


    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    Why not?
    I will answer that question later. After i find a verse on that.
    You atheist are are always denying the truth and don't want to here the truth its like you closing your ears.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31 Re: How do you know if I am lying? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    326
    Quote Originally Posted by Ezra
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    if god is omnipotent and omnipresent, why can he only reside in heaven?
    He made the earth and he can see us down from heaven.
    That still doesn't explain why he cannot come down to earth - is he trapped in heaven?


    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    if god is fully independant and potent, why does he rely on angels? - Why is it that angels can do things that god cannot?
    Your getting all mixed up. I said that God sends angles to send his message but if God comes and they see his face they die. Can't you understand that?
    then perhaps we will address specifically this peculiarity of god's nature as it arises later in the post

    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    so you can see god after all (albeit the back)?
    Thats only if you go to heaven
    so even in heaven you can only see the back of god?

    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    why would seeing god's face cause one to die? (and how would you know this unless god came to our sphere in the first place?)
    The bible says it
    where?
    and that still doesn't explain why seeing god would cause one to die - at the very least you would think that an omnipotent personality could at the very least have the ability to interact with people without being the cause of their death


    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    Why not?
    I will answer that question later. After i find a verse on that.
    [/quote]
    ok - no problem
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32 Re: How do you know if I am lying? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    326
    Quote Originally Posted by geezer
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    actually you also have their instructions on what is to be done and not done to achieve their given state
    complete irrelevant, instructions on how to imagine it, isn't evidence.
    irrelevant to what (if you say evidence you would have just swung the discussion in a complete circle?)
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    so you think that defining god as omnimax is not the standard definition of scripture nor a commonly acceptable one by the dictionary?
    :?
    never said that, I said you dont, meaning, you dont qualify god without reference to religion, the commonly accepted definition
    by dictionaries, is what the scriptures say a god should be defined as.
    then it brings us back to how would one qualify god without reference to religion - would it be appropriate to qualify the rest mass of a proton without reference to physics? (and wouldn't out of the several dictionary meanings of atomic, wouldn't the dictionary meaning relevant to physics be the obvious choice?)
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    you miss the point - there is no question
    of searching for water unless one knows what it is (of course it is a stupid example - but its the purpose of analogy to work with an
    (obviously) known thing to illustrate the requirements for an unknown thing) - in the same way, there is no question of searching for god
    unless there is some theory to start the ball rolling (due to a lack of theory, nobody was searching for dna 250 years ago)
    but you
    haven't establish the requirements for a unknown thing,
    yes I did : Omniscient, Omnipotent and Omnipresent
    yes in the future there might be a god that shows itself, but until then it must it
    remains purely subjective.
    until one surmounts the notion that the process given by those who have verified his existence are not irrelevant, yes

    because with out other qualifing evidence it is infantile to believe a god did it scenerio,
    so its not clear why you opened with the statement that anyone who offers means how to qualify god's nature is irrelevant

    also DNA still existed
    250 years ago, the more we educate ourselves the more, we dismiss fantasy.
    the dna eg was just to help you swallow the implicit absurdities in the water analogy

    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    one step at a time - for a start if you examine those qualities it would indicate the futility of the empirical (human senses)
    how
    so?
    how is it possible for an omnimax entity to become knowable by empiricism (what capacity do we have to ascertain an infinite quantity with standard empirical devices?)
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    and rational (human logic) methods - in scripture however you find the recommendation of purifying the
    consciousness (freedom of sin - lust, wrath etc) as the recommended process
    the bible is just a book,
    albeit a book about god and how to know him. After all, a physics book is also just a book too
    the religious refer to the
    contents as scripture but this is not evidence,
    physicists also refer to physics books. It also practically impossible to decipher the evidence of a physicist unless one is also familiar with such books
    however for the wont of an arguement. so you lock youself away and starve yourself of
    outside stimuli, until you start to imagine things and have hullcinations, yeh that sounds about right, then I suppose you get direct
    perception.
    that is not the recommendation on how to get free from sin/lust however

    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    that hasn't been established yet - so far we have (hopefully I think??) established that there are certain persons who lay claim to god having certain qualities
    irrelevant, having a claim and having proof are worlds apart, thus until a god shows itself it can only be deemed imaginary.
    thats why the original reads like this

    that hasn't been established yet - so far we have (hopefully I think??) established that there are certain persons who lay claim to god having certain qualities (which make empricism and rationalism null as a means of perception) and also certain processes (free from lust etc) as an initial means of verifying
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    (which make empricism and rationalism null as a means of perception)
    how so?
    already explained a few passages above - namely the human senses and logic are obviously limited and cannot verify eternity, infinity, etc
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    and also certain processes (free from lust etc) as an initial means of verifying
    how so?
    the senses are secondary to consciousness - just like the analogy I gave previously, about a lusty man entering a room full of women and thinking they all find him attractive (lust/wrath/envy/etc all affect our perception of reality)
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    on the contrary, if you defined water as gritty and tar tasting it would be an incorrect definition.
    maybe so, however as in your analogy the person has no knowledge of water he can define it pink with yellow balloons in the definition, is irrelevant.
    hence the first stage of knowledge is to learn theory from someone who already knows
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    Similarly if you define god in a way that he isn't, apply a process that is not recommended as valid to perceive him, and conclude that he is thus imaginary, it simply illustrates the wrong theory and the wrong practice
    how so? you can define something you have no prove for, anyway you wish, until you can show a prove, and thus define it, has it is.
    for a start, you won't end up with an entity that is omnimax, just like if you end up with a cup full of tar in your search for water, drinking it won't quench your thirst
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    that fundamental nature of consciousness however does not fall within the folds of either empiricism or rationalism
    please explain.
    the mind has no capacity to see what it is seeing with (ie consciousness) - (rationalism is ineffective)
    there is no atomic break down (like there is for water) of consciousness - (empiricism is ineffective)

    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    ]to establish that something is the cause of an effect, it is required that it be introduced where it absent. So to establish that the brain is the cause of consciousness you would have to show how by adding a brain to a dead man he regains life
    never said the brain was the conscious, just without the brain the conscious in gone.
    we also require more than just a brain since consciousness also tends to disappear without a heart or a supply of blood too

    are we refering to a living brain or a dead brain,
    take your choice
    because one would be pointless if we remove the brain the man dies and the brain dies. if
    we kept the body alive, and it was possible in medical science to connect all the nerve ending, and the spinal cord, then theoretically we
    could reanimate a body by placing a living brain in it, just like we can do heart transplants, in the future, we should be able to do brain
    transplants, now if we put a dead brain into a dead body nothing would happen as the conscious/the electrical sparks the jump from
    neuron to neuron are dead. the conscious has left the building.
    Are we are talking of science (specifically scientific fact) or science fiction? (Now if you want to start talking about books that are based on pure imagination ..... at least in scripture there is the claim of direct perception and the process how to achieve it)

    In short I think you will concede that there is no evidence that the brain is the cause of consciousness, since brain transplants are yet to restore life in a person that is bereft of it


    so with your logic we should be able to introduce god where it's absent to see if it is the cause of the universe, oops I forgot we
    cant.
    kind of difficult since god is omnipresent -
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    brain damage is something else, since it affects the functioning of a person, but not the qualitative nature of consciousness (after all, they're still alive)
    so they remain the same person and function just the same do they, oh I see.
    yes they remain the same person (or at least legally they remain the same and their mother still regards them as their child etc etc) but obviously the functioning is not the same. If a person blows a hole in their car's radiator, its still the same car, despite the difference of performance
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    ]if those same chemicals don't bring life back to a dead person it indicate that one is merely toying with the chemicals that consciousness utilizes rather than consciousness itself
    so please feel free to establish where the conscious is when a person is dead,
    the consciousness leaves the body .... of course establishing that requires a training of sorts, much like establishing where light is refracted in the universe requires training
    if you can establish that, then putting it back into a dead person should
    be easy, because it was in the brain whilst the brain was alive but when one dies so does the other.
    remember it was you who made the empirical claim (after all, the physical existence of the brain is an easily established empirical fact) that the brain is the cause of consciousness ..... I have shown how there is no (empirical) evidence for this.

    If you have been reading what I have been posting, you will also see that I have stated that empiricism is an insufficient means to determine spiritual truths - in other words the movement of consciousness, both in (in terms of birth) and out (in terms of dying despite all attempts to stay) of this body, is beyond our ability to control ...... the reason being that birth and death are under the jurisdiction of a superior authority ..... namely god

    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    actually I am talking about something else at the moment (the issue you are raising is dealt with earlier, namely coming to the path that
    enables one to come to the position that god exists, rather than accepting his position by default)
    without evidence how else
    does the religious person, he can only accept the default position/faith. there is no other.
    I repeat - actually I am talking about something else at the moment - namely coming to the path that enables one to verify the nature of god's existence

    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    What I am talking about here is that when you talk of evidence, any evidence, there is a variegated field of knowledge,
    where.
    in all fields of knowledge there is a variegated field of knowledge .... 1+1=2 is a mathematical truth when one is six years old, and it remains a truth even to a mathematics professor ..... the difference between the two indicates the variegated field of knowledge (in mathematics)

    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    as indicated by the scientist and the dumpster man
    all you done here is show that one is aledgedly
    more educated than the other, but faced with the same problems they are on equal par
    since we are talking specifically about the problems of nanoscience (particularly the evidence behind its conclusions) in this analogy, its not clear how they are equal
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    what is evident to them
    both is not the same, even if they come before the same body of evidence
    how so?
    most dumpster men are not familiar with the foundations of nanoscience and most nanoscientists are
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    similarly the evidence
    for perceiving god depends on training of a sort
    why?
    education plays an important role in the acquisition of knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    a scientist also qualifies the terms of their findings or even hypotheses,, but unless one is geared up in the 'training', it won't mean much. what to speak of the evidence of their findings - theory is ground base and unless you accept it there is no question of
    application and no question of evidence (in any field of knowledge)
    ah but there is all science is falsifiable, it gets tested and
    retested, to establish it as fact.
    and is the testing of nanoscience done by persons bereft of a foundation in nanoscience or by persons with a foundation in nanoscience .... in other words my point is that the evidence of science requires qualification/training/etc to establish a foundation .... without that foundation there is no question of application and no question of evidence

    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    if a person is after evidence, the onus is on them to apply the process
    and how do they come by this process of finding evidence
    for a god
    the same as any other field of knowledge - the easiest way is to find someone who knows

    become delusional I presume.
    no
    generally the initial requirements are aimed at giving up wrath/lust/envy/ etc, all of which are important ingredients in any delusional world view

    no man the onus must remain with him who asserts a
    thing.
    so scientists should be thrown out unless they can make their truths knowable to people who take out the rubbish (gulp - I think you have just trashed 90% of all advancements in arts, philosophy and science in the past 200 years)
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    assuming you are not 'informed' , yes
    but you've yet to establish how you become informed, without qualifiable evidence it's just hear say.
    I have mentioned several times already - purify the consciousness by becoming free from the effects of sin ... namely lust, anger, wrath etc
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    there are also identical positive statements in the claim (to an 'uninformed' dumpster
    man) that by studying the theoretical foundations of physics and chemistry (or alternatively, by endeavoring to be free from the
    contaminations of consciousness, namely lust, wrath etc) he can be sufficiently qualified to gain entrance into further education in
    university (or alternatively , one can begin the process of coming to the point of directly perceiving god's nature)
    how without the
    evidence to show it exist you cant perceive it.
    the freshman at college is also not in a position of direct perception (put after 1st year theory and 2nd year practical, he might be ... provided his theory and practical are in line with persons who already know)

    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    and thus come to the point of direct perception of nanoscience (or
    alternatively, one can come to the point of validating god's existence)
    but you need one instant of existence to establish that.
    establish to who exactly?
    Its kind of difficult because you presume that anyone who has a claim of direct perception of god is deluded

    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    if you can pull out logical fallacies on how the dumpster man can become a nanoscientist, you can apply the same points to indicate the logical fallacies of how a person can perceive the evidence for god If you cannot do that there are no logical fallacies - at a guess though I think you mean to say that I am not truthful, since even the following statement is logical - "Since all apples taste and look like oranges one can make apple juice with oranges" If you think I am not truthful, it certainly requires a logical argument (namely premises) on your behalf to indicate why it is so .....
    I dont think your lying, because you believe your telling the truth, your just ignorant of the real truth, so the truth you have will suffice.

    thats why I said if you want to establish that I am not being truthful, you require premises (otherwise we are just left with your subjective opinion)

    As far as your side goes, I can establish that your opinion of the falsity of claims of gods existence are not valid because you are not aware of the process required to perceive him (being free from lust/wrath etc)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33 Re: How do you know if I am lying? 
    Forum Masters Degree geezer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    london
    Posts
    540
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    irrelevant to what (if you say evidence you would have just swung the discussion in a complete circle?)
    firstly you, must establish, how someone can have direct perception of a thing, because without evidence, it will remain a circular arguement.
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    then it brings us back to how would one qualify god without reference to religion - would it be appropriate to qualify the rest mass of a proton without reference to physics? (and wouldn't out of the several dictionary meanings of atomic, wouldn't the dictionary meaning relevant to physics be the obvious choice?)
    yes in regard to physics, it can be proven, that things exist, but the same can not be said for religion.
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    yes I did : Omniscient, Omnipotent and Omnipresent
    ok so you've established how you'd wish them to be.
    however you've yet to establish a factual basis for these and other assertions.
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    until one surmounts the notion that the process given by those who have verified his existence
    it's yet to be proven that anybody verified anything to do with god/gods, thus the process that they claim is irrelevant.
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    so its not clear why you opened with the statement that anyone who offers means how to qualify god's nature is irrelevant
    because without evidence it is just purely subjective.
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    how is it possible for an omnimax entity to become knowable by empiricism (what capacity do we have to ascertain an infinite quantity with standard empirical devices?)
    it cant as it yet to be proven it exists, thus labeling it with any special powers is as valid as saying superman is invulnerable. pure fiction.
    thus reality is all we have to decern truth.
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    albeit a book about god and how to know him. After all, a physics book is also just a book too
    The Brown Fairy Book, is also a book of fiction the same as the bible, which is about fairies and how to know them, however the physics book is a book of fact.
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    physicists also refer to physics books. It also practically impossible to decipher the evidence of a physicist unless one is also familiar with such books
    thats as maybe but the outcome is based in fact not so with the bible. you can have as many people as you like to try to decipher the bible, but with out a factuel basis, it is a total waste of time.
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    that is not the recommendation on how to get free from sin/lust however
    please elaborate, what fact based process do you have so show how to get free from it.
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    thats why the original reads like this
    that hasn't been established yet - so far we have (hopefully I think??) established that there are certain persons who lay claim to god having certain qualities
    sorry no, you need a factual base.
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    (which make empricism and rationalism null as a means of perception) and also certain processes (free from lust etc) as an initial means of verifying
    sorry no, you need that factual base.
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    already explained a few passages above - namely the human senses and logic are obviously limited and cannot verify eternity, infinity, etc
    do you mean an endless or seemingly endless period of time, well who can! verify it unless they can live as long, what a completely irrational statement.
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    the senses are secondary to consciousness - just like the analogy I gave previously, about a lusty man entering a room full of women and thinking they all find him attractive (lust/wrath/envy/etc all affect our perception of reality)
    do they, are you absolutely sure, I'll tell you something that does effect a persons perception of reality, it's called religion/believe in a god/gods, having a believe in pure fantasy, is most certainly not good for the perception.
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    hence the first stage of knowledge is to learn theory from someone who already knows
    yes that's how we learn, but if the tutor unknowingly teaches you something that is wrong, because he's ignorant of the truth, does it sudden become right, because we learn it from someone who already know's, no it remains wrong.
    you should never take anybodies word for it, decern it for yourself, by studying both sides of the coin.
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    for a start, you won't end up with an entity that is omnimax,
    why this entity you've imagined could be anything you wish it to be, it could be blue skined like Krishna, or a flying serpent, like Quetzalcoatl, infact anything your imagination can conjour up,
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    the mind has no capacity to see what it is seeing with (ie consciousness) - (rationalism is ineffective)
    how so, if you are are looking at a tree, do you see something else besides a tree, because you seen trees all your life you can rationalise, what a tree is.
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    there is no atomic break down (like there is for water) of consciousness - (empiricism is ineffective)
    not at the moment perhaps, but we have evidence of it, as I have shown.
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    we also require more than just a brain since consciousness also tends to disappear without a heart or a supply of blood too
    but if the brain was still supplied with oxygen, it will continue to function, as would the conscious.
    give the brain a voice box to speak with and eyes to see, and must not forget ears. and you would be able to comunicate with this consciousness.
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    Are we are talking of science (specifically scientific fact) or science fiction? (Now if you want to start talking about books that are based on pure imagination ..... at least in scripture there is the claim of direct perception and the process how to achieve it)
    but scriptures are nothing but pure fiction, so how you arrive at direct perception is purely subjective.
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    In short I think you will concede that there is no evidence that the brain is the cause of consciousness,
    no I wont concede as I never said it was. what I actually said was this " never said the brain was the conscious, just without the brain the conscious in gone."
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    kind of difficult since god is omnipresent -
    I agree with the kind of difficult part, but it's because god is imaginary.
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    yes they remain the same person (or at least legally they remain the same and their mother still regards them as their child etc etc) but obviously the functioning is not the same.
    so looking the same, but not acting the same does not effect the qualitative nature of consciousness, are you sure?
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    the consciousness leaves the body .... of course establishing that requires a training of sorts,
    nobody can be absolute sure someone else is dead, without a little first aid training, your point being.
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    remember it was you who made the empirical claim (after all, the physical existence of the brain is an easily established empirical fact) that the brain is the cause of consciousness ..... I have shown how there is no (empirical) evidence for this.
    If you have been reading what I have been posting, you will also see that I have stated that empiricism is an insufficient means to determine spiritual truths -
    and if you had been reading what I had said, you would have noticed, that I have never once said the brain and the conscious are the same, what I have said and I repeat it for the third time is without the brain the conscious is gone.
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    in other words the movement of consciousness, both in (in terms of birth) and out (in terms of dying despite all attempts to stay) of this body, is beyond our ability to control ...... the reason being that birth and death are under the jurisdiction of a superior authority ..... namely god
    and you know this how?, your evidence for this is?.
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    I repeat - actually I am talking about something else at the moment - namely coming to the path that enables one to verify the nature of god's existence
    but you cant verify anything without first establishing it exists.
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    in all fields of knowledge there is a variegated field of knowledge .... 1+1=2 is a mathematical truth when one is six years old, and it remains a truth even to a mathematics professor ..... the difference between the two indicates the variegated field of knowledge (in mathematics)
    so how understand it , is to have knowledge of god you must either be a child, or have the mind of a child, full of wild imaginings and fantasy. I must admit childhood was great, but I'm an adult now.
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    since we are talking specifically about the problems of nanoscience
    no we just having a general debate, where did you get that idea.
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    (particularly the evidence behind its conclusions) in this analogy, its not clear how they are equal
    do I have to explain it if they were for instance stranded on an island together would one being more educated in a certain field does not make in the better person in this situation they are of equal par.
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    most dumpster men are not familiar with the foundations of nanoscience and most nanoscientists are
    irrelevant. the evidence for the dumpster man is there if he needs it.
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    education plays an important role in the acquisition of knowledge
    you dont say. (sarcasm)
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    and is the testing of nanoscience done by persons bereft of a foundation in nanoscience or by persons with a foundation in nanoscience .... in other words my point is that the evidence of science requires qualification/training/etc to establish a foundation .... without that foundation there is no question of application and no question of evidence
    yes the dumpster man has the evidence but does know how to apply it, whereas the religious have no evidence so nothing to apply at all. the dumpster man is better off then the religious man.
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    the same as any other field of knowledge - the easiest way is to find someone who knows
    no wrong, it's the teachers goal to lead you on the right track not to indoctrinate you into believing what he believes, he could be totally wrong, the best way it to find out for yourself.
    ie would you take a jews word for what god is, or an american indians or an inca.
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    no generally the initial requirements are aimed at giving up wrath/lust/envy/ etc, all of which are important ingredients in any delusional world view
    especially the religious's delusional world view.
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    so scientists should be thrown out unless they can make their truths knowable to people who take out the rubbish (gulp - I think you have just trashed 90% of all advancements in arts, philosophy and science in the past 200 years)
    irrelevant to what I said and the information/evidence is there if the dumpster man wish to learn it.
    it really up to him, it's not for the scientist to totally dump it down.
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    I have mentioned several times already - purify the consciousness by becoming free from the effects of sin ... namely lust, anger, wrath etc
    but how can you do that without qualifiable evidence, you need to establish a factual basis for your assertions.
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    the freshman at college is also not in a position of direct perception (put after 1st year theory and 2nd year practical, he might be ... provided his theory and practical are in line with persons who already know)
    he would never be a postion for direct perception of a god/gods.
    because it has and I getting rather fed up with this not been established that the thing he needs direct perception of exists.
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    establish to who exactly?
    Its kind of difficult because you presume that anyone who has a claim of direct perception of god is deluded
    well they are, without any evidence.
    show that direct perception of the invisble is any different than direct perception of non-existences.
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    thats why I said if you want to establish that I am not being truthful, you require premises (otherwise we are just left with your subjective opinion)
    how is it my subjective opinion your the one who asserted you saw god. and can produce no evidence to verify you position, yours is the subjective opinion.
    I at least have not asserted anything as I sadi at the begining of this thread ", you could not be sure, because your asking everybody to believe, that which is purely subjective to you, so without you producing further evidence, your at a impass. " and thats full circle and it will always be whilst you insist, you can have direct perception without any evidence to verify it.
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    As far as your side goes, I can establish that your opinion of the falsity of claims of gods existence are not valid because you are not aware of the process required to perceive him (being free from lust/wrath etc)
    without evidence, you can percieve any which way you wish, it is all pure BS, produce one ounce of evidence, I atom of evidence. to back up you BS please.
    put up or shut up.
    "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense - Buddha"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34 Re: How do you know if I am lying? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    326
    Quote Originally Posted by geezer
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    irrelevant to what (if you say evidence you would have just swung the discussion in a complete circle?)
    firstly you, must establish, how someone can have direct perception of a thing, because without evidence, it will remain a circular arguement.
    that is established through the practical application of theory which of course leads to evidence. The reason your argument is circular is because evidence is arrived at after the practical application of theory, not before it (also explains why people go to university before they get a career rather than after they get a career)

    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    then it brings us back to how would one qualify god without reference to religion - would it be appropriate to qualify the rest mass of a proton without reference to physics? (and wouldn't out of the several dictionary meanings of atomic, wouldn't the dictionary meaning relevant to physics be the obvious choice?)
    yes in regard to physics, it can be proven, that things exist, but the same can not be said for religion.
    you can't prove anything unless you start with theory and then move on to practice, so it s not clear why you want to scrap all that exists in the way of theory and practice in the name of religion and demand evidence

    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    yes I did : Omniscient, Omnipotent and Omnipresent
    ok so you've established how you'd wish them to be.
    however you've yet to establish a factual basis for these and other assertions.
    what makes you think I asserted them - at the very least its not uncommon for practically any scripture of any faith to assert the same thing

    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    until one surmounts the notion that the process given by those who have verified his existence
    it's yet to be proven that anybody verified anything to do with god/gods, thus the process that they claim is irrelevant.
    its yet to be proven that anything exists to anyone if they reject the process in a knee jerk fashion

    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    so its not clear why you opened with the statement that anyone who offers means how to qualify god's nature is irrelevant
    because without evidence it is just purely subjective.
    so perhaps you can assert how anything accepted as factual in the field of advanced physics exists without reference to applied theory.

    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    how is it possible for an omnimax entity to become knowable by empiricism (what capacity do we have to ascertain an infinite quantity with standard empirical devices?)
    it cant as it yet to be proven it exists, thus labeling it with any special powers is as valid as saying superman is invulnerable. pure fiction.
    thus reality is all we have to decern truth.
    once again, I challenge you to assert any truth in the field of advanced physics bereft of a foundation in theory, since it seems to be a pet habit of yours in the field of religion

    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    albeit a book about god and how to know him. After all, a physics book is also just a book too
    The Brown Fairy Book, is also a book of fiction the same as the bible, which is about fairies and how to know them, however the physics book is a book of fact.
    the physics book remains a work of fiction for one who demands evidence first and theory second

    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    physicists also refer to physics books. It also practically impossible to decipher the evidence of a physicist unless one is also familiar with such books
    thats as maybe but the outcome is based in fact not so with the bible. you can have as many people as you like to try to decipher the bible, but with out a factuel basis, it is a total waste of time.
    hence the importance of applied theory

    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    that is not the recommendation on how to get free from sin/lust however
    please elaborate, what fact based process do you have so show how to get free from it.
    well its kind of the essential lesson of scripture thus its a bit hard to condense - but in short, we come into this world as visitors (we are born with nothing and we die with nothing - the fact is that we can't take anything with us). Thus extremes of a possessive mentality (aka lust) and renunciation (as you indicated) are not relevant, since ultimately we have nothing to do with the attachment or renunciation of this world (since you can only renounce or attach yourself to thing s that were yours to begin with)

    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    thats why the original reads like this
    that hasn't been established yet - so far we have (hopefully I think??) established that there are certain persons who lay claim to god having certain qualities
    sorry no, you need a factual base.
    if you are too recalcitrant to work with theory, that will never eventuate

    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    (which make empricism and rationalism null as a means of perception) and also certain processes (free from lust etc) as an initial means of verifying
    sorry no, you need that factual base.
    if you are too recalcitrant to work with theory, that will never eventuate

    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    already explained a few passages above - namely the human senses and logic are obviously limited and cannot verify eternity, infinity, etc
    do you mean an endless or seemingly endless period of time, well who can! verify it unless they can live as long, what a completely irrational statement.
    perhaps now you are starting to perceive the limits of empiricism

    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    the senses are secondary to consciousness - just like the analogy I gave previously, about a lusty man entering a room full of women and thinking they all find him attractive (lust/wrath/envy/etc all affect our perception of reality)
    do they, are you absolutely sure, I'll tell you something that does effect a persons perception of reality, it's called religion/believe in a god/gods, having a believe in pure fantasy, is most certainly not good for the perception.
    certainly the senses can carry away a person - anger for instance makes understanding many aspects of philosophy impossible, what to speak of religion

    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    hence the first stage of knowledge is to learn theory from someone who already knows
    yes that's how we learn, but if the tutor unknowingly teaches you something that is wrong, because he's ignorant of the truth, does it sudden become right, because we learn it from someone who already know's, no it remains wrong.
    you should never take anybodies word for it, decern it for yourself, by studying both sides of the coin.
    if a teacher is wrong it becomes apparent when they cannot deliver the goods ... and even if you want to study both sides of the coin that requires a teacher for both sides

    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    for a start, you won't end up with an entity that is omnimax,
    why this entity you've imagined could be anything you wish it to be, it could be blue skined like Krishna, or a flying serpent, like Quetzalcoatl, infact anything your imagination can conjour up,
    regardless of form, we are talking of qualities (an omnipotent personality could , theoretically at least, have many forms) .... thats why it is important at this point of the discussion that we focus on qualities

    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    the mind has no capacity to see what it is seeing with (ie consciousness) - (rationalism is ineffective)
    how so, if you are are looking at a tree, do you see something else besides a tree, because you seen trees all your life you can rationalise, what a tree is.
    we are not talking about empiricism (the field of knowledge that deals with sense perception)
    we are talking about rationalism (the field of knowledge that deals with logic)
    an example of rationalism would be walking towards a tree on the horizon and understanding that the tree is appearing bigger and bigger with each step due to one's approaching it, rather than growing (which is how it would appear from an empirical stance).

    Before we continue can you see the difference between empiricism and rationalism?

    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    there is no atomic break down (like there is for water) of consciousness - (empiricism is ineffective)
    not at the moment perhaps, but we have evidence of it, as I have shown.
    I think you are mistaken - you provided no evidence what so ever of the empirical foundations of consciousness

    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    we also require more than just a brain since consciousness also tends to disappear without a heart or a supply of blood too
    but if the brain was still supplied with oxygen, it will continue to function, as would the conscious.
    In science fiction novels anything is possible, but please remember we we are talking about science as it exists in the real world
    give the brain a voice box to speak with and eyes to see, and must not forget ears. and you would be able to comunicate with this consciousness.
    In science fiction novels anything is possible, but please remember we we are talking about science as it exists in the real world

    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    Are we are talking of science (specifically scientific fact) or science fiction? (Now if you want to start talking about books that are based on pure imagination ..... at least in scripture there is the claim of direct perception and the process how to achieve it)
    but scriptures are nothing but pure fiction, so how you arrive at direct perception is purely subjective.
    at this point in the discussion I have to ask how did you arrive at the idea that a brain, removed from its normal habitat and supplied with O2 can be communicated with provided it has a few senses hooked up to it?
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    In short I think you will concede that there is no evidence that the brain is the cause of consciousness,
    no I wont concede as I never said it was. what I actually said was this " never said the brain was the conscious, just without the brain the conscious in gone."
    hence you have, in philosophical terms, an article which is necessary yet not sufficient to solve the problem

    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    kind of difficult since god is omnipresent -
    I agree with the kind of difficult part, but it's because god is imaginary.
    ironically, to say that god is imaginary also requires omnipresence and omniscience, since you would have to know everything in all places to make that statement in full confidence. Given the inherent limitations of human existence, such statements can be easily rejected ....

    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    yes they remain the same person (or at least legally they remain the same and their mother still regards them as their child etc etc) but obviously the functioning is not the same.
    so looking the same, but not acting the same does not effect the qualitative nature of consciousness, are you sure?
    certainly .... death is the only thing that is seen to affect the qualitative nature of consciousness

    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    the consciousness leaves the body .... of course establishing that requires a training of sorts,
    nobody can be absolute sure someone else is dead, without a little first aid training, your point being.
    in the immediate moments after a person dies, it may not be apparent, but after a few hours, even a child can tell the difference

    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    remember it was you who made the empirical claim (after all, the physical existence of the brain is an easily established empirical fact) that the brain is the cause of consciousness ..... I have shown how there is no (empirical) evidence for this.
    If you have been reading what I have been posting, you will also see that I have stated that empiricism is an insufficient means to determine spiritual truths -
    and if you had been reading what I had said, you would have noticed, that I have never once said the brain and the conscious are the same, what I have said and I repeat it for the third time is without the brain the conscious is gone.
    hence you have two problems
    1) You are using an article that is necessary yet not sufficient to solve th eproblem.
    2) You rely on a paradigm (ie empiricism) to solve the problem despite the fact that it has inherent limitations

    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    in other words the movement of consciousness, both in (in terms of birth) and out (in terms of dying despite all attempts to stay) of this body, is beyond our ability to control ...... the reason being that birth and death are under the jurisdiction of a superior authority ..... namely god
    and you know this how?,
    which part(s) are you specifically challenging - the idea that we have no control over death, the idea that we have no control over birth or the idea that these things ar eunder the control of god?
    your evidence for this is?.
    hopefully you will understand by now that it is useless to demand evidence bereft of a foundation of theory - the real question is whether you are properly qualified to analze the evidence (in other words ar eyou free from the gross influences of lust, anger, enviousness etc)
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    I repeat - actually I am talking about something else at the moment - namely coming to the path that enables one to verify the nature of god's existence
    but you cant verify anything without first establishing it exists.
    and you cannot establish that anything exists to a person who refuses to even theoretically accept theory - what to do?


    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    in all fields of knowledge there is a variegated field of knowledge .... 1+1=2 is a mathematical truth when one is six years old, and it remains a truth even to a mathematics professor ..... the difference between the two indicates the variegated field of knowledge (in mathematics)
    so how understand it , is to have knowledge of god you must either be a child, or have the mind of a child, full of wild imaginings and fantasy. I must admit childhood was great, but I'm an adult now.
    are we even having the same conversation?
    ?????


    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    since we are talking specifically about the problems of nanoscience
    no we just having a general debate, where did you get that idea.
    ... and analogy is one such element of debate ... so to get back to the topic at hand ..... we are talking specifically about the problems of nanoscience (in regard to whether such problems can be solved by a scientist or dumpster man)

    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    (particularly the evidence behind its conclusions) in this analogy, its not clear how they are equal
    do I have to explain it if they were for instance stranded on an island together would one being more educated in a certain field does not make in the better person in this situation they are of equal par.
    thats okay if you want to change the specifics of th eproblem and put them on a deserted island or whatever, but at the moment we are talking about the problems of nanoscience and who can better solve them - the dumpster man (who has no theoretical foundation in science) or the nanoscientist (who has an established theoretical and practical field in science, particularly nanotechnology) ... which one do you think is best suited to solving the problems of nanoscience and why?

    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    most dumpster men are not familiar with the foundations of nanoscience and most nanoscientists are
    irrelevant. the evidence for the dumpster man is there if he needs it.
    true, but due to a lack of theoretical training its unlikely the dumpster man could even hold the evidence up th e right way, much less make sense of it

    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    education plays an important role in the acquisition of knowledge
    you dont say. (sarcasm)
    so its not clear why you insist on violating this principle of knowledge when it comes to religion (at the very least it makes your entire anti-religion argument appear very emotional and fanatical)

    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    and is the testing of nanoscience done by persons bereft of a foundation in nanoscience or by persons with a foundation in nanoscience .... in other words my point is that the evidence of science requires qualification/training/etc to establish a foundation .... without that foundation there is no question of application and no question of evidence
    yes the dumpster man has the evidence but does know how to apply it, whereas the religious have no evidence so nothing to apply at all. the dumpster man is better off then the religious man.
    on the contrary, ignorance in any field of knowledge is characterized by the inability to work in practice, thus in terms of teh fruit sof knowledge, it makes no difference whether a person in ignorance has the evidence or not, since they are unable to utilize it.

    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    the same as any other field of knowledge - the easiest way is to find someone who knows
    no wrong, it's the teachers goal to lead you on the right track not to indoctrinate you into believing what he believes, he could be totally wrong, the best way it to find out for yourself.
    ie would you take a jews word for what god is, or an american indians or an inca.
    so therefore you find that teachers have a variety of methods of teaching - and when one is at the beginning, namely theory, it is quite straight and narrow (when one is teaching values that is a different matter however) - regardless however, the easiest way to know something is to go to someone who knows - at the very least it explains why so many people who go to university go on to have lucrative careers

    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    no generally the initial requirements are aimed at giving up wrath/lust/envy/ etc, all of which are important ingredients in any delusional world view
    especially the religious's delusional world view.
    any world view actually - a lusty theist is just as much out to lunch as a lusty atheist
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    so scientists should be thrown out unless they can make their truths knowable to people who take out the rubbish (gulp - I think you have just trashed 90% of all advancements in arts, philosophy and science in the past 200 years)
    irrelevant to what I said and the information/evidence is there if the dumpster man wish to learn it.
    it really up to him, it's not for the scientist to totally dump it down.
    since you have this chip on your shoulder about theory, perhaps now would be an ideal moment for you to explain how the dumpster man coul dgo about learning it without coming to the initial stage of theoretical knowledge
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    I have mentioned several times already - purify the consciousness by becoming free from the effects of sin ... namely lust, anger, wrath etc
    but how can you do that without qualifiable evidence, you need to establish a factual basis for your assertions.
    you cannot see how lust affects the consciousness?

    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    the freshman at college is also not in a position of direct perception (put after 1st year theory and 2nd year practical, he might be ... provided his theory and practical are in line with persons who already know)
    he would never be a postion for direct perception of a god/gods.
    because it has and I getting rather fed up with this not been established that the thing he needs direct perception of exists.
    established by who exactly - after all there are numerous saints who establish that god exists ... if it s your argument that it is not established by a scientist (ie empiricist), maybe you should rethink over what has been established about the dumpster man verifying the claims of the scientist and the whole thing about the limitations of empiricism

    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    establish to who exactly?
    Its kind of difficult because you presume that anyone who has a claim of direct perception of god is deluded
    well they are, without any evidence.
    without theory there is no question of practice and without practice there is no question of evidence

    show that direct perception of the invisble is any different than direct perception of non-existences.
    well you would have to examine the process offerred by those advocating such direct perception - interestingly enough there are processes in advanced physics that offer an introduction into perceiving the nature of electrons (the movement of an electron is commonly traced by seeing the path it leaves while passing through a cloud of gas - electrons are not visible) - now what would happen if you demanded evidence of an electron and didn't have the theoretical foundation to get there?

    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    thats why I said if you want to establish that I am not being truthful, you require premises (otherwise we are just left with your subjective opinion)
    how is it my subjective opinion your the one who asserted you saw god. and can produce no evidence to verify you position, yours is the subjective opinion.
    the uninformed can reject electrons on the same basis

    I at least have not asserted anything as I sadi at the begining of this thread ",
    you seem quite sure that all assertions of god's existence ar edelusional, even at the expense of being ignorant of and violating the prerequisites for validating such claims
    you could not be sure, because your asking everybody to believe,
    not once have i mentioned the word believe - I did however reccommend that one who wants to know should follow the processes advocated by persons who know, and the essence of that process of knowing god is to be free from sin, namely lust, wrath etc
    that which is purely subjective to you, so without you producing further evidence, your at a impass. " and thats full circle and it will always be whilst you insist, you can have direct perception without any evidence to verify it.
    actually it is your argument that is circular - you reject the first offering of theory that offers an introduction to practical application which leads to the ability to work with evidence - the fact that there is not a single institution of learning that has a syllabus like that should indicate the futility of your position
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    As far as your side goes, I can establish that your opinion of the falsity of claims of gods existence are not valid because you are not aware of the process required to perceive him (being free from lust/wrath etc)
    without evidence, you can percieve any which way you wish, it is all pure BS, produce one ounce of evidence, I atom of evidence. to back up you BS please.
    put up or shut up.
    without theory as a foundation there is no question of evidence - you can take your "put up or shut up" BS to any place of learning you like, but don't expect to pass too many examinations
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35 Re: How do you know if I am lying? 
    Forum Masters Degree geezer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    london
    Posts
    540
    punarmusiko :

    if direct perception of a deity were possible there should be data that exists outside of the mythology that suggests it is genuine.
    You are truly dense. Obviously you either didn't read my post or didn't comprehend it. The evidence is your problem. Whatever evidence it is, it is going to be testable and at least potentially falsifiable.

    when you posted up this thread you ask two questions "If I said I have seen god how, would you know if I was lying?

    If I said I have seen god, how would you know if I was saying the truth?"
    I gave you my honest opinion, and I have not wavered from that position, but it seems since then you have tried to convince me I wrong hence why it is a circular arguement.

    Religious nutters have been trying to shift the burden of proof on the skeptics for years, but it doesn't negate the fact that it is your claim that there are gods. You get to provide the evidence. Asking the skeptic what that evidence is, is the same as shifting the burden of proof. In other words, its is the tactic of the intellectual coward.

    I can tell you what the nature of the evidence will be: it will be testable and at least potentially falsifiable. If your god exists, it will have evidence. No, the onus is yours to produce it. Without evidence for such and extraordinary claim, the rational conclusion is that you are deluded or lying about your gods. Period.

    Your argument is flawed to the core.

    As for evidence, again its quite simple: any testable and tangible bit of empirical data that supports the superstitious claims of the those that make claims about their religions. Its as easy as that. The religiously deluded like to have their claims without evidence, since this gives them their perceived validity: the skeptics can't disprove their claims, therefore they must be true. What complete and utter bollocks.

    You can make any magical and supernatural claim you want and then apply the deluded logic that religious nutters apply and come out saying, "well you obvisious do not understand the process to achieve direct perception."
    wihich is basically dishonesty.
    Even you must see the nonsense in that. Yet you don't. You continue to go on and on.
    Never once demonstrating a mind open enough to consider that, being unable to specify the evidence means that no such phenomena exists!
    "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense - Buddha"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36 Re: How do you know if I am lying? 
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    209
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    That still doesn't explain why he cannot come down to earth - is he trapped in heaven?
    Did i say he was traped in heaven? NOOOOO

    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    so even in heaven you can only see the back of god?
    Yes or you will die if you see his face.


    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    why would seeing god's face cause one to die? (and how would you know this unless god came to our sphere in the first place?)
    OK it said that in the bible. Do i have to repeat that again?

    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    where?
    and that still doesn't explain why seeing god would cause one to die - at the very least you would think that an omnipotent personality could at the very least have the ability to interact with people without being the cause of their death
    Yes the bible says it. Read READ then ask questions.


    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    ok - no problem
    Ok still haven't found it yet but wait.
    You atheist are are always denying the truth and don't want to here the truth its like you closing your ears.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Sophomore Nanobrain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Texas, US
    Posts
    147
    Quote Originally Posted by Ezra
    Yes the bible says it.
    For the sake of understanding what foundation you lay the christian bible on as good proof. What, in your mind makes the it seem to be the 'truth'? Tis' true that the christian bible says many things. But, many books claim many things to be true. What has made you to embrace christianity over any other religion? What makes it's words more true than other words?

    You constantly quote the christian bible, as if you know for sure that it is truth! But, I am willing to bet that it is the only bible you have read! Maybe a couple of words out of other(s). If you have no proof, not even for yourself, that you can reveal to us, than you may as well quit quoting the christian bible. Your comments are void, because the christian bible, as any other bible is completely debatable! So, get off your ignorant horse and give your beliefs some more damned thought!

    Just to aid you in your knowledge on the subject matter, here is a link speaking about pagan religions around and before the time of Jesus, withholding myths of virgin births. I am not wholly denouncing christianity, or any religion at this fact. But, seriously, do some more research...if you wish to effectively debate on the subject matter of religion. Notice, I didn't speak of debating God. But, debating religion. You don't know which one is right. If even any of them are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    209
    Quote Originally Posted by Nanobrain
    Quote Originally Posted by Ezra
    Yes the bible says it.
    For the sake of understanding what foundation you lay the christian bible on as good proof. What, in your mind makes the it seem to be the 'truth'? Tis' true that the christian bible says many things. But, many books claim many things to be true. What has made you to embrace christianity over any other religion? What makes it's words more true than other words?

    You constantly quote the christian bible, as if you know for sure that it is truth! But, I am willing to bet that it is the only bible you have read! Maybe a couple of words out of other(s). If you have no proof, not even for yourself, that you can reveal to us, than you may as well quit quoting the christian bible. Your comments are void, because the christian bible, as any other bible is completely debatable! So, get off your ignorant horse and give your beliefs some more damned thought!

    Just to aid you in your knowledge on the subject matter, here is a link speaking about pagan religions around and before the time of Jesus, withholding myths of virgin births. I am not wholly denouncing christianity, or any religion at this fact. But, seriously, do some more research...if you wish to effectively debate on the subject matter of religion. Notice, I didn't speak of debating God. But, debating religion. You don't know which one is right. If even any of them are right.

    UHHHH...
    You atheist are are always denying the truth and don't want to here the truth its like you closing your ears.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    209
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    ok - no problem

    Quote Originally Posted by Ezra
    Ok still haven't found it yet but wait.
    I forgot what was i checking up???
    You atheist are are always denying the truth and don't want to here the truth its like you closing your ears.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Sophomore Nanobrain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Texas, US
    Posts
    147
    Quote Originally Posted by Ezra
    UHHHH...
    Okay, I get it. Your just a hopeless idiot for now. I think I might be done with you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    209
    Quote Originally Posted by Nanobrain
    Quote Originally Posted by Ezra
    UHHHH...
    Okay, I get it. Your just a hopeless idiot for now. I think I might be done with you.
    Oh ok idiot.
    You atheist are are always denying the truth and don't want to here the truth its like you closing your ears.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42 Re: How do you know if I am lying? 
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    "Jamerica"...When in America, Florida; when in Jamaica, St. Mary
    Posts
    959
    Quote Originally Posted by Ezra
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    so even in heaven you can only see the back of god?
    Yes or you will die if you see his face.
    Ok, that makes no sense whatsoever. Please stop posting...you're embarrassing me.
    Whence comes this logic: no evidence = false?

    http://www.atheistthinktank.net/thinktank/index.php

    Theists welcome.
    ___________
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43 Re: How do you know if I am lying? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    326
    Quote Originally Posted by geezer
    punarmusiko :

    if direct perception of a deity were possible there should be data that exists outside of the mythology that suggests it is genuine.
    and there is - my question is however, is it a mere coincidence that physicists test the findings of physics and car mechanics test cars? (in other words the moment you talk of evidence is the moment you talk of a knowledge base - otherwise it would be possible for car mechanics to test the findings of physics)

    You are truly dense. Obviously you either didn't read my post or didn't comprehend it. The evidence is your problem.
    I challenged you to provide an example of evidence, particularly in a subtle field of technical science, of evidence that exists outside of a knowledge base ...... your basis for argument is that you don't see any evidence for god, but then given that you haven't fulfilled the prerequisites (or even appear to have knowledge of the prerequisites for such a claim) its hardly surprising
    Whatever evidence it is, it is going to be testable and at least potentially falsifiable.
    testable by who? You or someone properly established in the field. If you are not a biologist, how would you expect to test the evidence for biology?
    when you posted up this thread you ask two questions "If I said I have seen god how, would you know if I was lying?

    If I said I have seen god, how would you know if I was saying the truth?"
    I gave you my honest opinion, and I have not wavered from that position, but it seems since then you have tried to convince me I wrong hence why it is a circular arguement.
    there's more to a solid argument that honesty - there is the issue of logic - if its your claim that evidence can exist separate from knowledge please explain (preferably with logic)
    Religious nutters have been trying to shift the burden of proof on the skeptics for years, but it doesn't negate the fact that it is your claim that there are gods.
    I have however been referring to theists with the claim of direct perception and also processes they advocate (namely becoming free from sin) as playing a dynamic role in developing such perception
    You get to provide the evidence. Asking the skeptic what that evidence is, is the same as shifting the burden of proof. In other words, its is the tactic of the intellectual coward.
    I haven't asked you what the evidence is - I have however asked you what is the process advocated to determine the evidence and if you have practically applied such processes
    I can tell you what the nature of the evidence will be: it will be testable and at least potentially falsifiable.
    Once again, are the findings of physicists testable by dumpster drivers?
    If your god exists, it will have evidence.
    electrons, protons and atoms also exist, but it is no coincidence that it is the physicist and not the dumpster driver who directly perceives the nature of such things
    No, the onus is yours to produce it. Without evidence for such and extraordinary claim, the rational conclusion is that you are deluded or lying about your gods. Period.
    a dumpster driver who doesn't know the first thing about science can also claim that atoms are fictional entities (namely because they ar eignorant of the process)
    Your argument is flawed to the core.
    I encourage you to establish how your argument is not by providing an example of evidence that exists separate from a knowledge base - all you have talked about is how things should be testable - the obvious other half that you are neglecting is testable by who?
    As for evidence, again its quite simple: any testable and tangible bit of empirical data that supports the superstitious claims of the those that make claims about their religions.
    and I have already established earlier how empiricism is an insufficient means to determine the nature of god, since a god that can be verified by empiricism (ie be easily identified by any joe, regardless of the state of their consciousness) fail to meet the criteria for being god - in other words your demand is something of an oxymoron, like demanding that water be set on fire
    Its as easy as that.
    for the simple minded bereft of a foundation in philosophical principles perhaps .....
    The religiously deluded like to have their claims without evidence,
    actually they like to have their claims of evidence dealt with in the same fashion as any other field of knowledge, namely the right person applying the right process

    since this gives them their perceived validity: the skeptics can't disprove their claims, therefore they must be true. What complete and utter bollocks.
    Interesting, but I don't recall ever posting such an argument on this thread ....
    You can make any magical and supernatural claim you want and then apply the deluded logic that religious nutters apply and come out saying, "well you obvisious do not understand the process to achieve direct perception."
    well don't rational claims exist alongside the rational application of processes to perceive the claims (in other words the testing comes not at the point of evidence but at the point of process - a point you have obviously neglected)

    wihich is basically dishonesty.
    not applying the relevant process is dishonesty - just like the dumpster driver claiming atoms don't exist is a dishonest claim

    Even you must see the nonsense in that. Yet you don't. You continue to go on and on.
    its not clear on what grounds you can reject a claim without having applied the relevant process


    Never once demonstrating a mind open enough to consider that, being unable to specify the evidence means that no such phenomena exists!
    I have however mentioned several times the process (ie become free from sin) .. and your mind certainly doesn't appear open to even discussing that .....
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44 Re: How do you know if I am lying? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    326
    Quote Originally Posted by Ezra

    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    so even in heaven you can only see the back of god?
    Yes or you will die if you see his face.
    do you realize how ridiculous what you just said sounds - at th every least I doubt you could find a verse in the bible that says this

    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    why would seeing god's face cause one to die? (and how would you know this unless god came to our sphere in the first place?)
    OK it said that in the bible. Do i have to repeat that again?
    perhaps you could repeat the verse number .... it would help us accept that you are not making things up in the name of religion
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    where?
    and that still doesn't explain why seeing god would cause one to die - at the very least you would think that an omnipotent personality could at the very least have the ability to interact with people without being the cause of their death
    Yes the bible says it. Read READ then ask questions.
    if you have read it and cannot even find the verse number, much less explain it (assuming of course that you do read the bible in the first place) why should I be inspired to read it?


    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    ok - no problem
    Ok still haven't found it yet but wait.
    [/quote]
    :?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    716
    punarmusiko wrote:
    electrons, protons and atoms also exist, but it is no coincidence that it is the physicist and not the dumpster driver who directly perceives the nature of such things
    He can perceive electron when he pees over an electric fence.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    326
    Quote Originally Posted by prasit
    punarmusiko wrote:
    electrons, protons and atoms also exist, but it is no coincidence that it is the physicist and not the dumpster driver who directly perceives the nature of such things
    He can perceive electron when he pees over an electric fence.
    then what was happening between the years 1750 (when Benjamin Franklin was flying kites into storms), the suggestion of the term 'electron' in 1874 by G. Johnstone Stoney and the discovery of the sub atomic reality of the electron by J.J. Thomson in 1897?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47 Re: How do you know if I am lying? 
    Forum Sophomore susan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    leeds
    Posts
    121
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    and there is.
    oh great so my direct perception of the Invisble Pink Unicorn and the Flying Spaghetti Monster, have been validated, thanks always knew I was right.
    I also have had direct perception of Winnie the Pooh, does he exist now too?
    I may not always be right, but I'm never wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    716
    punarmusiko wrote:
    then what was happening between the years 1750 (when Benjamin Franklin was flying kites into storms), the suggestion of the term 'electron' in 1874 by G. Johnstone Stoney and the discovery of the sub atomic reality of the electron by J.J. Thomson in 1897?
    1750 Benjamin Franklin discovered the property of electron without injuring himself. Before that many men discovered it in the last millisecond of his life.
    1874 Stoney coined the term electron for a particle that exists since the beginning of time.
    1897 Thomson discovered the subatomic reality, which is real even before the discovery.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49 Re: How do you know if I am lying? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    326
    Quote Originally Posted by susan
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    and there is.
    oh great so my direct perception of the Invisble Pink Unicorn and the Flying Spaghetti Monster, have been validated, thanks always knew I was right.
    I also have had direct perception of Winnie the Pooh, does he exist now too?
    if you also have a claim of a process that you applied to come to that point of direct perception, and that others can partake of, ........ perhaps .......
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    326
    Quote Originally Posted by prasit
    punarmusiko wrote:
    then what was happening between the years 1750 (when Benjamin Franklin was flying kites into storms), the suggestion of the term 'electron' in 1874 by G. Johnstone Stoney and the discovery of the sub atomic reality of the electron by J.J. Thomson in 1897?
    1750 Benjamin Franklin discovered the property of electron without injuring himself. Before that many men discovered it in the last millisecond of his life.
    1874 Stoney coined the term electron for a particle that exists since the beginning of time.
    1897 Thomson discovered the subatomic reality, which is real even before the discovery.
    so in other words there is more to discerning the nature of an electron than peeing on an electric fence, eh?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51 Re: How do you know if I am lying? 
    Forum Sophomore susan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    leeds
    Posts
    121
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    Quote Originally Posted by susan
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    and there is.
    oh great so my direct perception of the Invisble Pink Unicorn and the Flying Spaghetti Monster, have been validated, thanks always knew I was right.
    I also have had direct perception of Winnie the Pooh, does he exist now too?
    if you also have a claim of a process that you applied to come to that point of direct perception, and that others can partake of, ........ perhaps .......
    yes I do, there are literally millions who have followed the process for the FSM and IPU, and I have a claim and can apply a process to that point of direct perception for winnie the pooh, so is he real, does he exist?
    I may not always be right, but I'm never wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52 Re: How do you know if I am lying? 
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    "Jamerica"...When in America, Florida; when in Jamaica, St. Mary
    Posts
    959
    Quote Originally Posted by susan
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    Quote Originally Posted by susan
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    and there is.
    oh great so my direct perception of the Invisble Pink Unicorn and the Flying Spaghetti Monster, have been validated, thanks always knew I was right.
    I also have had direct perception of Winnie the Pooh, does he exist now too?
    if you also have a claim of a process that you applied to come to that point of direct perception, and that others can partake of, ........ perhaps .......
    yes I do, there are literally millions who have followed the process for the FSM and IPU, and I have a claim and can apply a process to that point of direct perception for winnie the pooh, so is he real, does he exist?
    The only way there is even a slight possibility that something exists is if someone (other than a kid, of course) believes in it. No one believes in FSM, or the IPU...it was just a device created by atheists to mock religion; thus, there is no way it possibly exists. No one believes in Winnie the Pooh; as I've shown in a previous thread, it is known who created it...and it is certain that he used his imagination (while it isn't certain whether religious people are using their imagination).

    If you can provide such logical proof that God doesn't exist, I'll believe you; otherwise, you're just ranting about your unfounded belief.
    Whence comes this logic: no evidence = false?

    http://www.atheistthinktank.net/thinktank/index.php

    Theists welcome.
    ___________
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53 Re: How do you know if I am lying? 
    Forum Sophomore susan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    leeds
    Posts
    121
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    The only way there is even a slight possibility that something exists is if someone (other than a kid, of course) believes in it. No one believes in FSM, or the IPU...
    excuse me, I suppose your going to say allah does not exist, or buddha, there are literally millions of pastafarians http://www.gelfmagazine.com/archives..._appendage.php
    and the IPU she can only be seen by her believers, she is the Creator of Uncertainty .
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_Pink_Unicorn
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    it was just a device created by atheists to mock religion; thus, there is no way it possibly exists.
    god was created to keep the masses under control, whats your point.
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    No one believes in Winnie the Pooh;
    you speak for yourself, I have direct perception as does numerous others thoughout the world. https://licensing.disney.com/Login/m...ography_112905
    just because your jealous of his popularity.
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    as I've shown in a previous thread, it is known who created it...and it is certain that he used his imagination (while it isn't certain whether religious people are using their imagination).
    but you didn't show no such thing, it known who created god, so I can say the same thing.
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    If you can provide such logical proof that God doesn't exist, I'll believe you; otherwise, you're just ranting about your unfounded belief.
    can you provide such logical proof that the Allah, Vishnu, Zeus, FSM, IPU and Winnie the Pooh don't exist.
    I may not always be right, but I'm never wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54 Re: How do you know if I am lying? 
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    "Jamerica"...When in America, Florida; when in Jamaica, St. Mary
    Posts
    959
    Quote Originally Posted by susan
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    The only way there is even a slight possibility that something exists is if someone (other than a kid, of course) believes in it. No one believes in FSM, or the IPU...
    excuse me, I suppose your going to say allah does not exist, or buddha
    Never said that.
    Quote Originally Posted by susan
    , there are literally millions of pastafarians http://www.gelfmagazine.com/archives..._appendage.php
    That's mere humour. Of course this isn't true.
    Quote Originally Posted by susan
    and the IPU she can only be seen by her believers, she is the Creator of Uncertainty .
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_Pink_Unicorn
    But nobody saw her...she's invisible; furthermore, nobody believes in her. Like I said, it's simply an atheist device to ridicule religion.
    Quote Originally Posted by susan
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    it was just a device created by atheists to mock religion; thus, there is no way it possibly exists.
    god was created to keep the masses under control, whats your point.
    Perhaps some were, but you have no proof of this. It is an established FACT that the IPU and the FSM were created by atheists in an attempt to ridicule religion.
    Quote Originally Posted by susan
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    No one believes in Winnie the Pooh;
    you speak for yourself, I have direct perception as does numerous others thoughout the world.
    nonsense!
    Quote Originally Posted by susan
    https://licensing.disney.com/Login/m...ography_112905
    just because your jealous of his popularity.
    what?
    Quote Originally Posted by susan
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    as I've shown in a previous thread, it is known who created it...and it is certain that he used his imagination (while it isn't certain whether religious people are using their imagination).
    but you didn't show no such thing,
    Like I said, IN ANOTHER THREAD.
    Quote Originally Posted by susan
    it known who created god, so I can say the same thing.
    No...nobody knows who 'created God', or if he was ever created. Perhaps you refer to people who first wrote the scriptures, in which case you still have no proof that they invented God, nor do you have their names.
    Quote Originally Posted by susan
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    If you can provide such logical proof that God doesn't exist, I'll believe you; otherwise, you're just ranting about your unfounded belief.
    can you provide such logical proof that the Allah, Vishnu, Zeus, FSM, IPU and Winnie the Pooh don't exist.
    The first two...no.
    The last four...already did.
    Whence comes this logic: no evidence = false?

    http://www.atheistthinktank.net/thinktank/index.php

    Theists welcome.
    ___________
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55 Re: How do you know if I am lying? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    326
    Quote Originally Posted by susan
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    Quote Originally Posted by susan
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    and there is.
    oh great so my direct perception of the Invisble Pink Unicorn and the Flying Spaghetti Monster, have been validated, thanks always knew I was right.
    I also have had direct perception of Winnie the Pooh, does he exist now too?
    if you also have a claim of a process that you applied to come to that point of direct perception, and that others can partake of, ........ perhaps .......
    yes I do, there are literally millions who have followed the process for the FSM and IPU, and I have a claim and can apply a process to that point of direct perception for winnie the pooh, so is he real, does he exist?
    millions eh?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster
    The Flying Spaghetti Monster is the deity of a parody religion called the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.[1] The religion was founded in 2005 by Oregon State University physics graduate Bobby Henderson to protest against the decision by the Kansas State Board of Education to require the teaching of intelligent design as an alternative to biological evolution.
    but if you want to talk about the historic tradition of the FSM you can trace it to

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celestial_teapot
    Russell's teapot, sometimes called the Celestial Teapot, was an analogy first coined by the philosopher Bertrand Russell, intended to refute the idea that the burden of proof lies upon the sceptic to disprove unfalsifiable claims of religions.

    The concept of Russell's teapot has been extrapolated into humorous, more explicitly religion-parodying forms such as the Invisible Pink Unicorn and the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56 Re: How do you know if I am lying? 
    Forum Sophomore susan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    leeds
    Posts
    121
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    Quote Originally Posted by susan
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    The only way there is even a slight possibility that something exists is if someone (other than a kid, of course) believes in it. No one believes in FSM, or the IPU...
    excuse me, I suppose your going to say allah does not exist, or buddha
    Never said that.
    never said you did, reread it.
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    Quote Originally Posted by susan
    , there are literally millions of pastafarians http://www.gelfmagazine.com/archives..._appendage.php
    That's mere humour. Of course this isn't true.
    and the bible is not, LOL, with talking donkeys and serpents, zombies, the blind regaining their sight, it's humour too.
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    Quote Originally Posted by susan
    and the IPU she can only be seen by her believers, she is the Creator of Uncertainty .
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_Pink_Unicorn
    But nobody saw her...she's invisible; furthermore, nobody believes in her. Like I said, it's simply an atheist device to ridicule religion.
    LOL, maybe so but can you prove there isn't one in this entire universe.
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    Quote Originally Posted by susan
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    it was just a device created by atheists to mock religion; thus, there is no way it possibly exists.
    god was created to keep the masses under control, whats your point.
    Perhaps some were, but you have no proof of this.
    ah but we can be 99.9999% sure it happened that way by the evidence we do have.
    mainly because of this http://www.godchecker.com/and can you prove that none of them existed.
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    It is an established FACT that the IPU and the FSM were created by atheists in an attempt to ridicule religion.
    as I said, maybe so, but can you prove they dont exist.
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    Quote Originally Posted by susan
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    No one believes in Winnie the Pooh;
    you speak for yourself, I have direct perception as does numerous others thoughout the world.
    nonsense!
    prove it's nonsense.
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    Quote Originally Posted by susan
    https://licensing.disney.com/Login/m...ography_112905
    just because your jealous of his popularity.
    what?
    yeh what, what's your problem with winnie the pooh, how do you know he was imagined by A A Milne, can you prove that, he could have had an epiphany of him, as did I when I read the process for direct perception.
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    Quote Originally Posted by susan
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    as I've shown in a previous thread, it is known who created it...and it is certain that he used his imagination (while it isn't certain whether religious people are using their imagination).
    but you didn't show no such thing,
    Like I said, IN ANOTHER THREAD.
    where, you are having a laugh aren't you.
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    Quote Originally Posted by susan
    it known who created god, so I can say the same thing.
    No...nobody knows who 'created God', or if he was ever created. Perhaps you refer to people who first wrote the scriptures, in which case you still have no proof that they invented God,
    just as you have no prove that the people who saw the FSM and the IPU and our Winnie, weren't having epiphany's.
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    Quote Originally Posted by susan
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    If you can provide such logical proof that God doesn't exist, I'll believe you; otherwise, you're just ranting about your unfounded belief.
    can you provide such logical proof that the Allah, Vishnu, Zeus, FSM, IPU and Winnie the Pooh don't exist.
    The first two...no.
    The last four...already did.
    where is this aledge prove that Zeus, FSM, IPU, and our winnie dont exist, I've seen none.
    are you being facetious.


    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    Quote Originally Posted by susan
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    Quote Originally Posted by susan
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    and there is.
    oh great so my direct perception of the Invisble Pink Unicorn and the Flying Spaghetti Monster, have been validated, thanks always knew I was right.
    I also have had direct perception of Winnie the Pooh, does he exist now too?
    if you also have a claim of a process that you applied to come to that point of direct perception, and that others can partake of, ........ perhaps .......
    yes I do, there are literally millions who have followed the process for the FSM and IPU, and I have a claim and can apply a process to that point of direct perception for winnie the pooh, so is he real, does he exist?
    millions eh?
    why yes, can you prove he doesn't exist.
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster
    The Flying Spaghetti Monster is the deity of a parody religion called the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.[1] The religion was founded in 2005 by Oregon State University physics graduate Bobby Henderson to protest against the decision by the Kansas State Board of Education to require the teaching of intelligent design as an alternative to biological evolution.
    but if you want to talk about the historic tradition of the FSM you can trace it to

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celestial_teapot
    Russell's teapot, sometimes called the Celestial Teapot, was an analogy first coined by the philosopher Bertrand Russell, intended to refute the idea that the burden of proof lies upon the sceptic to disprove unfalsifiable claims of religions.

    The concept of Russell's teapot has been extrapolated into humorous, more explicitly religion-parodying forms such as the Invisible Pink Unicorn and the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
    it's irrelevant as to were there traditions lie, can you prove that the persons who claim direct perception were not having epiphany's and can you prove that none of them exist.
    and while you at it you may want to disprove all these as well.http://www.godchecker.com/
    I may not always be right, but I'm never wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57 Re: How do you know if I am lying? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    326
    Quote Originally Posted by susan


    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    Quote Originally Posted by susan
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    Quote Originally Posted by susan
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    and there is.
    oh great so my direct perception of the Invisble Pink Unicorn and the Flying Spaghetti Monster, have been validated, thanks always knew I was right.
    I also have had direct perception of Winnie the Pooh, does he exist now too?
    if you also have a claim of a process that you applied to come to that point of direct perception, and that others can partake of, ........ perhaps .......
    yes I do, there are literally millions who have followed the process for the FSM and IPU, and I have a claim and can apply a process to that point of direct perception for winnie the pooh, so is he real, does he exist?
    millions eh?
    why yes, can you prove he doesn't exist.
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster
    The Flying Spaghetti Monster is the deity of a parody religion called the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.[1] The religion was founded in 2005 by Oregon State University physics graduate Bobby Henderson to protest against the decision by the Kansas State Board of Education to require the teaching of intelligent design as an alternative to biological evolution.
    but if you want to talk about the historic tradition of the FSM you can trace it to

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celestial_teapot
    Russell's teapot, sometimes called the Celestial Teapot, was an analogy first coined by the philosopher Bertrand Russell, intended to refute the idea that the burden of proof lies upon the sceptic to disprove unfalsifiable claims of religions.

    The concept of Russell's teapot has been extrapolated into humorous, more explicitly religion-parodying forms such as the Invisible Pink Unicorn and the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
    it's irrelevant as to were there traditions lie, can you prove that the persons who claim direct perception were not having epiphany's and can you prove that none of them exist.
    and while you at it you may want to disprove all these as well.http://www.godchecker.com/
    its not clear how your case is different, since you are being fully obedient to the descriptions given, namely an atheist adopting something for the sake of satire.

    BTW on a finer point, the celestial teapot and other such things only work as satire since there is no claim of direct perception - the moment you want to use these things in instances where there is the claim of direct perception (namely you follow a certain process and you get a certain result) you have to start with something else - this is why Betrand Russel INC. only use such satirical elements to combat fields with no claim of direct perception (and also processes that accompany such claims)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58 Re: How do you know if I am lying? 
    Forum Sophomore susan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    leeds
    Posts
    121
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    its not clear how your case is different, since you are being fully obedient to the descriptions given, namely an atheist adopting something for the sake of satire.
    and the bible is not, LOL, with talking donkeys and serpents, zombies, the blind regaining their sight, it's satire too.
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    BTW on a finer point, the celestial teapot and other such things only work as satire since there is no claim of direct perception
    who say's, how do you know?
    I'm making that claim.
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    the moment you want to use these things in instances where there is the claim of direct perception (namely you follow a certain process and you get a certain result)
    as I did, so your point is.
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    you have to start with something else - this is why Betrand Russel INC. only use such satirical elements to combat fields with no claim of direct perception (and also processes that accompany such claims)
    where has Bertrand Russell, even mentioned direct perception, his point was quite clear, if you cant prove that theres no such thing as a celestial teapot, how can you prove a god, even with direct perception. and as I said please can you prove that the I and other persons who claim direct perception were not having epiphany's and can you prove that the CT the FSM and IPU or winnie the pooh dont exist.
    and while you at it you may want to disprove all these as well.
    http://www.godchecker.com/
    I may not always be right, but I'm never wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59 Re: How do you know if I am lying? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    326
    Quote Originally Posted by susan
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    its not clear how your case is different, since you are being fully obedient to the descriptions given, namely an atheist adopting something for the sake of satire.
    and the bible is not, LOL, with talking donkeys and serpents, zombies, the blind regaining their sight, it's satire too.
    at this point it would be interesting to ask what are the general principles you apply, aside from a specific claim of religion or god, to determine whether something is real or not
    (after all there are claims even in science of understanding the fact that animals have language, ressurection from coma or NDE's, eye surgery etc)




    BTW on a finer point, the celestial teapot and other such things only work as satire since there is no claim of direct perception
    who say's, how do you know?
    I'm making that claim.
    my point is that the original claim was made by Bertrand Russel, who, with all due respect, is a greater philosopher than yourself. There were very good reasons why he gave his celestial teapot satirical piece without laying claim to direct perception - there are very good philosophical reasons for this, namely that a person making a direct claim is also burdened with elaborating on the process used to arrive at direct perception

    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    the moment you want to use these things in instances where there is the claim of direct perception (namely you follow a certain process and you get a certain result)
    as I did, so your point is.
    see above

    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    you have to start with something else - this is why Betrand Russel INC. only use such satirical elements to combat fields with no claim of direct perception (and also processes that accompany such claims)
    where has Bertrand Russell, even mentioned direct perception, his point was quite clear, if you cant prove that theres no such thing as a celestial teapot, how can you prove a god, even with direct perception. and as I said please can you prove that the I and other persons who claim direct perception were not having epiphany's and can you prove that the CT the FSM and IPU or winnie the pooh dont exist.
    I don't think you understand - Bertrand Russel did not claim direct perception of the celestial teapot - and as I have already mentioned, there are very good reasons for this.
    As regarding coming to the point of direct perception of god, that is primarily dependent on one performing religious activity to such a point that one becomes free from the influence of sin (lust, wrath, envy, etc), and once again, there are very good reasons fo this as well

    and while you at it you may want to disprove all these as well.
    http://www.godchecker.com/
    I guess such a challenge requires you to present the arguments intelligently
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60 Re: How do you know if I am lying? 
    Forum Sophomore susan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    leeds
    Posts
    121
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    at this point it would be interesting to ask what are the general principles you apply, aside from a specific claim of religion or god,
    no not religion or god, my claim is for the FSM the IPU the CT and Winnie the pooh.
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    to determine whether something is real or not
    the same way any normal rational human being does, with my senses, is there any others, lol.
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    (after all there are claims even in science of understanding the fact that animals have language, ressurection from coma or NDE's, eye surgery etc
    I agree with the eye surgery, and animal languages, but can you elaborate a little more about the others, resurrecting from a coma, dont you have to be dead to resurrect, and ndes are just hallucinations, so some links would be handy.
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    my point is that the original claim was made by Bertrand Russel, who, with all due respect, is a greater philosopher than yourself.
    agreed.
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    There were very good reasons why he gave his celestial teapot satirical piece without laying claim to direct perception - there are very good philosophical reasons for this, namely that a person making a direct claim is also burdened with elaborating on the process used to arrive at direct perception
    exactly, the burden of proof always falls on the claimers shoulders, you and I both know that neither of us can prove by direct, indirect, or any kind of perception that the FSM, god, IPU, satan, CT or Winnie the pooh exists.
    the reason russell made no claim to direct perception, is because it would be impossible, and extremely infantile to claim he could.
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    I don't think you understand - Bertrand Russel did not claim direct perception of the celestial teapot - and as I have already mentioned, there are very good reasons for this.
    yes as I said above.
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    As regarding coming to the point of direct perception of god, that is primarily dependent on one performing religious activity to such a point that one becomes free from the influence of sin (lust, wrath, envy, etc), and once again, there are very good reasons fo this as well
    and the exact same priocess can be claimed for direct perception of the FSM, IPU, CT, and Winnie the pooh.
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    I guess such a challenge requires you to present the arguments intelligently
    ok, you start.
    I may not always be right, but I'm never wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61 Re: How do you know if I am lying? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    326
    Quote Originally Posted by susan
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    at this point it would be interesting to ask what are the general principles you apply, aside from a specific claim of religion or god,
    no not religion or god, my claim is for the FSM the IPU the CT and Winnie the pooh.
    thats okay but I am asking for general principles

    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    to determine whether something is real or not
    the same way any normal rational human being does, with my senses, is there any others, lol.
    well funny that you mention it, yes there is - apart from empiricism (direct sense perception) there is also rationalism (extrapolation), and apart from these two there is the approaching persons in established fields who have a greater claim in these two.

    anyway, for a crash course in philosophy you might want to examine the distinctions between inductive, deductive and abductive knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    (after all there are claims even in science of understanding the fact that animals have language, ressurection from coma or NDE's, eye surgery etc
    I agree with the eye surgery, and animal languages, but can you elaborate a little more about the others, resurrecting from a coma, dont you have to be dead to resurrect, and ndes are just hallucinations, so some links would be handy.
    Didn't wan to get side tracked - just wanted to establish that all these things that you establish as fantastic are capable or not far from being capably attained by science - thus my inquiry into the general principles you apply to determine something is real or not (since at the moment it appears that you merely have a strong bias against religion)
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    There were very good reasons why he gave his celestial teapot satirical piece without laying claim to direct perception - there are very good philosophical reasons for this, namely that a person making a direct claim is also burdened with elaborating on the process used to arrive at direct perception
    exactly, the burden of proof always falls on the claimers shoulders, you and I both know that neither of us can prove by direct, indirect, or any kind of perception that the FSM, god, IPU, satan, CT or Winnie the pooh exists.
    the reason russell made no claim to direct perception, is because it would be impossible, and extremely infantile to claim he could.
    there is however the claim of direct perception in religion, which basically boils down to getting free from the influence of sin (lust/wrath etc) as the foundation for perceiving the nature of god's existenc
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    As regarding coming to the point of direct perception of god, that is primarily dependent on one performing religious activity to such a point that one becomes free from the influence of sin (lust, wrath, envy, etc), and once again, there are very good reasons fo this as well
    and the exact same priocess can be claimed for direct perception of the FSM, IPU, CT, and Winnie the pooh.
    then if you insist on applying the same process as religion, it appears that it is ultimately an issue of semantics
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    I guess such a challenge requires you to present the arguments intelligently
    ok, you start.
    [/quote]
    how do you propose that I refute an argument you haven't put forward?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62 Re: How do you know if I am lying? 
    Forum Sophomore susan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    leeds
    Posts
    121
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    well funny that you mention it, yes there is - apart from empiricism (direct sense perception) there is also rationalism (extrapolation),
    yes, but what is the known thing your infering it from, you need the solid base to infer from else it's pure guess work.
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    and apart from these two there is the approaching persons in established fields who have a greater claim in these two.
    well for people who like me use the first one "empiricism" (direct sense perception) then there findings can be tested and verified, however the same cannot be said to testing for a deity, due to an extreme lack of evidence. so it then falls into your other one "extrapolation", which brings us back to having no solid base to infer from, oops.
    so your point was.
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    anyway, for a crash course in philosophy you might want to examine the distinctions between inductive, deductive and abductive knowledge
    ok! but can you explain how inductive or deductive reasoning comes into play regarding your baseless direct perception of a deity, all inductive and logical premises are only verifable, testable, and falsifiable, if future experience and certainty are attainable , and in your case there not.
    and what is your plausible based evidence, for abductive reasoning, you have none, only the questionable claims of mystics, and holy books, that cant be tested, verified and falsified.
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    Didn't want to get side tracked - just wanted to establish that all these things that you establish as fantastic are capable or not far from being capably attained by science - thus my inquiry into the general principles you apply to determine something is real or not (since at the moment it appears that you merely have a strong bias against religion)
    no I only have a bias against fantastic claims, gods are just one of those fantastic claims, as are fairies, elves, witches, warlocks, mummies, werewolves etc.... however your welcome to try and establish these things exist if you like.
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    there is however the claim of direct perception in religion, which basically boils down to getting free from the influence of sin (lust/wrath etc) as the foundation for perceiving the nature of god's existence,
    but it's complete without merit unless it can establish a solid evidence based foundation, which it cannot.
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    then if you insist on applying the same process as religion, it appears that it is ultimately an issue of semantics
    no not semantics.
    The examples I cited demonstrate that there is no more reason to believe in yours than in any of the others, they share the Key Characteristics of having No Supporting Evidence, to support their existence., thus we are equal in our process for direct perception.
    I may not always be right, but I'm never wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63 Re: How do you know if I am lying? 
    Forum Ph.D. Wolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    969
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    This is just a question to get everyone thinking on how they verify things pertaining to religion, regardless whether one is an atheist or theist

    If I said I have seen god how, would you know if I was lying?

    If I said I have seen god, how would you know if I was saying the truth?
    Not to pop-in late or clobber anything, but...why do you care?

    If you think you've seen God, good on ya. Have fun.
    If you're lying that you've seen God, I don't really care.

    Since belief and fanaticism can make people totally believe that they've done something or seen something, they can bust practically any lie-detector test.

    So in the end, the same ol' question remains. Do -I- have faith in the existence of God? Everything else is irrelevant. like I said, if you think you've seen him, cool beans. If not, well, the only one I really need to be concerned about is myself anyway.

    Although this might be a good question to put before the Catholic Church. They seem to have exploited this notion for centuries...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64 Re: How do you know if I am lying? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    326
    Quote Originally Posted by Wolf
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    This is just a question to get everyone thinking on how they verify things pertaining to religion, regardless whether one is an atheist or theist

    If I said I have seen god how, would you know if I was lying?

    If I said I have seen god, how would you know if I was saying the truth?
    Not to pop-in late or clobber anything, but...why do you care?

    If you think you've seen God, good on ya. Have fun.
    If you're lying that you've seen God, I don't really care.

    Since belief and fanaticism can make people totally believe that they've done something or seen something, they can bust practically any lie-detector test.

    So in the end, the same ol' question remains. Do -I- have faith in the existence of God? Everything else is irrelevant. like I said, if you think you've seen him, cool beans. If not, well, the only one I really need to be concerned about is myself anyway.

    Although this might be a good question to put before the Catholic Church. They seem to have exploited this notion for centuries...
    basically you have just stated that regardless of what a person says, you know that there is no basis for the claim that god exists (since you assert that god is a purely subjective thing).

    Do you want to tell us on what platform of knowledge you make this assertion?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65 Re: How do you know if I am lying? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    326
    Quote Originally Posted by susan
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    well funny that you mention it, yes there is - apart from empiricism (direct sense perception) there is also rationalism (extrapolation),
    yes, but what is the known thing your infering it from, you need the solid base to infer from else it's pure guess work.
    and as indicated, empiricism doesn't have the monopoly on that solid base
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    and apart from these two there is the approaching persons in established fields who have a greater claim in these two.
    well for people who like me use the first one "empiricism" (direct sense perception) then there findings can be tested and verified, however the same cannot be said to testing for a deity, due to an extreme lack of evidence. so it then falls into your other one "extrapolation", which brings us back to having no solid base to infer from, oops.
    so your point was.
    well - to get back on track, we were discussing about methods of attaining knowledge - you said you rely on direct perception - if that is so, and if you have never seen the president of america, does the president exist? - How about if you have car trouble, why do you take it to a car mechanic instead of relying on your direct perception?
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    anyway, for a crash course in philosophy you might want to examine the distinctions between inductive, deductive and abductive knowledge
    ok! but can you explain how inductive or deductive reasoning comes into play regarding your baseless direct perception of a deity, all inductive and logical premises are only verifable, testable, and falsifiable, if future experience and certainty are attainable , and in your case there not.
    first of all, how do you know that god doesn't exist (BTW - word of caution about philosophy - absolute negatives contradict themselves)

    and what is your plausible based evidence, for abductive reasoning, you have none, only the questionable claims of mystics, and holy books, that cant be tested, verified and falsified.
    cannot be tested by empiricism, but can be tested by persons who control their senses, and get free from the influence of lust etc
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    Didn't want to get side tracked - just wanted to establish that all these things that you establish as fantastic are capable or not far from being capably attained by science - thus my inquiry into the general principles you apply to determine something is real or not (since at the moment it appears that you merely have a strong bias against religion)
    no I only have a bias against fantastic claims, gods are just one of those fantastic claims, as are fairies, elves, witches, warlocks, mummies, werewolves etc.... however your welcome to try and establish these things exist if you like.
    thats ok but despite all this talk you still haven't really explained how you determine something is real or not - at the moment you say that your senses tell you what is perfect by direct perception - do you want to continue with this stance?

    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    there is however the claim of direct perception in religion, which basically boils down to getting free from the influence of sin (lust/wrath etc) as the foundation for perceiving the nature of god's existence,
    but it's complete without merit unless it can establish a solid evidence based foundation, which it cannot.
    first of all establish that empiricism has a solid base (PS - good luck)
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    then if you insist on applying the same process as religion, it appears that it is ultimately an issue of semantics
    no not semantics.
    The examples I cited demonstrate that there is no more reason to believe in yours than in any of the others, they share the Key Characteristics of having No Supporting Evidence, to support their existence., thus we are equal in our process for direct perception.
    [/quote]
    you miss the point - if you just want to mimic my statements of what the process is the issue is simply semantic - like for instance if I wam describing water and I say it is H20, quenches your thirst when you drink it etc etc and you say that the FSM is the same thing then its obvious that what I call "water" is what you call "the FSM" since the processes we apply to determine its qualities are identical
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66 Re: How do you know if I am lying? 
    Forum Masters Degree geezer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    london
    Posts
    540
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    basically you have just stated that regardless of what a person says, you know that there is no basis for the claim that god exists (since you assert that god is a purely subjective thing).
    and it is, lol.
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    Do you want to tell us on what platform of knowledge you make this assertion?
    yes lol, it's called reality.
    "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense - Buddha"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67 Re: How do you know if I am lying? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    326
    Quote Originally Posted by geezer
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    basically you have just stated that regardless of what a person says, you know that there is no basis for the claim that god exists (since you assert that god is a purely subjective thing).
    and it is, lol.
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    Do you want to tell us on what platform of knowledge you make this assertion?
    yes lol, it's called reality.
    thats okay, but philosophical discussions usually revolve around the discussion of reality - at the very least its difficult to find a philosopher of any high standing who says "because I say so"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68 Re: How do you know if I am lying? 
    Forum Sophomore susan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    leeds
    Posts
    121
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    and as indicated, empiricism doesn't have the monopoly on that solid base
    and your objective evidence for this is.
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    well - to get back on track, we were discussing about methods of attaining knowledge - you said you rely on direct perception
    no you said that, I just said, that we could use the same subjective process for winnie the pooh.
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    if that is so, and if you have never seen the president of america, does the president exist?
    yes because, I could have heard of him, smelt him, touched him and dare i say it tasted him, yuck!
    I can do none of these for any god.
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    How about if you have car trouble, why do you take it to a car mechanic instead of relying on your direct perception?
    to get it fixed, because I have not been objectively trained in car mechanics.
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    first of all, how do you know that god doesn't exist (BTW - word of caution about philosophy - absolute negatives contradict themselves)
    I've never said that god/gods dont exist, it would be stupid to do so, unless I could travel the entire universe and look under ever nook and grannie, there is no way I can prove god/gods dont exist, but given there is no evdence either for or against god/gods existing, I must take the possive stance that it is unreasonable to believe that a god did it scenerio, is viable.
    until such time as a god show itself and proves us all wrong which will be sometime never.
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    cannot be tested by empiricism, but can be tested by persons who control their senses, and get free from the influence of lust etc
    and your objective evidence for this is.
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    thats ok but despite all this talk you still haven't really explained how you determine something is real or not - at the moment you say that your senses tell you what is perfect by direct perception
    your the one who brought direct perception into the fore, I've only stated the same subjective process can be done for winnie the pooh. and I asked you to show how by using your subjective process of direct perception, you can prove the existence of gods, fairies, elves, witches, warlocks, mummies, werewolves etc they are all as believable as each other.
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    first of all establish that empiricism has a solid base
    You pick up a round thing, you feel it, it spherical about the size of your hand, but with little peeks and troughs, all over it surface. You smell it, it has a very distinct citrusy smell, you lick it, it has a tang to it, that tickles your tongue. you squeeze it and listen to the sound it makes, a squishy squashy squelchy sound. what am I discribing? notice I haven't mentioned what it looks like. we may have diferent names for it in different cultures, but we all know it as the same thing.
    it's a sinaasappel, arancione, alaranjado, naranja, and the english is?
    unless of course everybody in the world is delusional, then it could be a rabbit.
    I may not always be right, but I'm never wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69 Re: How do you know if I am lying? 
    Forum Ph.D. Wolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    969
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    basically you have just stated that regardless of what a person says, you know that there is no basis for the claim that god exists (since you assert that god is a purely subjective thing).
    Eh, sorta...

    If you first assume that God, if he existed, would be a supernatural being beyond worldly test, and then assume from this that anyone stating they've seen God would not have any physical proof, you're left with only two options. Either you believe the person, or you don't.

    It gets weirder. Hold on...

    1. You trust the person, and believe in God, so you believe the person.

    2. You don't trust the person, and don't believe in God, so you don't believe them.

    3. You don't trust the person, but you believe in God, and it doesn't matter.

    4. You trust the person, but don't believe in God, so you remain confused.

    Then of course you get into the aspect of whether or not the person is telling you they saw God as a way of proving to you that he exists. If that's the case, you run into the same problem, because that person can't physically prove himself given the assumption of God's nature above.

    BTW, this is why monks brew beer.

    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    Do you want to tell us on what platform of knowledge you make this assertion?
    The only platform I see that makes any sense...the platform of my own consciousness.

    Since the very nature of God would infer a lack of physical properties, how can I be asked to believe God exists by any other means than my own personal logic? People can tell me about God until they turn blue, but if I don't have faith, it's all conjecture.

    This works in reverse, too, BTW. If I have faith, and you have no evidence against it....
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70 Re: How do you know if I am lying? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    326
    Quote Originally Posted by Wolf
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    basically you have just stated that regardless of what a person says, you know that there is no basis for the claim that god exists (since you assert that god is a purely subjective thing).
    Eh, sorta...

    If you first assume that God, if he existed, would be a supernatural being beyond worldly test, and then assume from this that anyone stating they've seen God would not have any physical proof, you're left with only two options. Either you believe the person, or you don't.
    you miss the point
    If god controls the world, how do you expect a worldly test to reveal him?



    It gets weirder. Hold on...

    1. You trust the person, and believe in God, so you believe the person.

    2. You don't trust the person, and don't believe in God, so you don't believe them.

    3. You don't trust the person, but you believe in God, and it doesn't matter.

    4. You trust the person, but don't believe in God, so you remain confused.
    or alternatively you examine the process advocated for determining god's existence - hopefully at this point you understand why empirical claims can be rejected

    BTW, this is why monks brew beer.
    only the one's addicted to alcohol

    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    Do you want to tell us on what platform of knowledge you make this assertion?
    The only platform I see that makes any sense...the platform of my own consciousness.[/quote]
    actually its the platform of your senses, which are blunt and fallible
    Since the very nature of God would infer a lack of physical properties, how can I be asked to believe God exists by any other means than my own personal logic?
    you apply yours sense of logic to the process - first of all, its not logically that empiricism be capable of revealing god, since god is by definition transcendental to sense perception (like for instance if you want to hide from someone in this world it requires much more than you simply willing it - this however is not the case with god)
    People can tell me about God until they turn blue, but if I don't have faith, it's all conjecture.
    people can tell you all about any thing related to any field of knowledge beyond your direct perception, but if you don't have faith (at least until you ride such faith to the point of direct perception) it sall conjecture
    This works in reverse, too, BTW. If I have faith, and you have no evidence against it....
    How about if neither of us were well versed in medicine and I was saying that my doctor told me I had a liver condition and I should address it by reducing my sodium intake?
    In otherwords doesn't faith in a credible source deliver the identical result as knowledge gleaned by direct perception (after all, even a person well versed in medicine would adopt the same dietary recommendation)? [/quote]
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71 Re: How do you know if I am lying? 
    Forum Ph.D. Wolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    969
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    you miss the point
    If god controls the world, how do you expect a worldly test to reveal him?
    I think you missed the point, 'cause that's exactly what I've been saying the whole time. How does someone expect to test for God if the very nature of God is beyond the physical?

    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    Quote Originally Posted by wolf
    It gets weirder. Hold on...
    1.
    2.
    3.
    4.
    or alternatively you examine the process advocated for determining god's existence - hopefully at this point you understand why empirical claims can be rejected
    Okay, so you observe someone tackling those 4 statements, and then what? If they come to you and tell you they believe the person saw God, yer back at square one.

    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    Quote Originally Posted by wolf
    The only platform I see that makes any sense...the platform of my own consciousness.
    actually its the platform of your senses, which are blunt and fallible
    What do my senses have anything to do with it? I could be completely deprived and it wouldn't matter. My faith is not linked to the physical world alone, if at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    Quote Originally Posted by wolf
    This works in reverse, too, BTW. If I have faith, and you have no evidence against it....
    How about if neither of us were well versed in medicine and I was saying that my doctor told me I had a liver condition and I should address it by reducing my sodium intake?
    In otherwords doesn't faith in a credible source deliver the identical result as knowledge gleaned by direct perception (after all, even a person well versed in medicine would adopt the same dietary recommendation)?
    Yes, but what I'd really be doing is examining your doctor, not you. Do I believe that your doctor knows what he's doing, and that the change in diet will have the prescribed effect? Probably, because I can go test it myself, and there will be physical tests to prove it. Such does not exist with any faith-based belief. You are deprived of the ability to test with standard means.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72 Re: How do you know if I am lying? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    326
    Quote Originally Posted by Wolf
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    you miss the point
    If god controls the world, how do you expect a worldly test to reveal him?
    I think you missed the point, 'cause that's exactly what I've been saying the whole time. How does someone expect to test for God if the very nature of God is beyond the physical?
    so your argument is that the physical and the perceivable are identical?


    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    Quote Originally Posted by wolf
    It gets weirder. Hold on...
    1.
    2.
    3.
    4.
    or alternatively you examine the process advocated for determining god's existence - hopefully at this point you understand why empirical claims can be rejected
    Okay, so you observe someone tackling those 4 statements, and then what? If they come to you and tell you they believe the person saw God, yer back at square one.
    if a person has no foundation of knowledge, then obviously all they will have to go by in either case of acceptance or rejection is faith
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    Quote Originally Posted by wolf
    The only platform I see that makes any sense...the platform of my own consciousness.
    actually its the platform of your senses, which are blunt and fallible
    What do my senses have anything to do with it? I could be completely deprived and it wouldn't matter. My faith is not linked to the physical world alone, if at all.
    if you are talking about empiricism (which seems to be your direction with the whole physical = evidence thing) then the foundation are the sense - eyes, ears etc (which ar e limited)

    if you are talking about rationalism (which is about extrapolating about what one has gleaned from one's direct pereception) the foundation is your intelligence and logic (which is limited)

    however what i am talking about is the process of applying what persons already familiar with the object knowledge recommend as a a means of coming to the point of direct perception - in other words the best way to learn about medicine is from a doctor, the best person to learn about car engines from is a mechanic and similarly th ebest person to learn about god from is a saintly person - in this way one is not dependant on one's limited senses and mind and intelligence
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    Quote Originally Posted by wolf
    This works in reverse, too, BTW. If I have faith, and you have no evidence against it....
    How about if neither of us were well versed in medicine and I was saying that my doctor told me I had a liver condition and I should address it by reducing my sodium intake?
    In otherwords doesn't faith in a credible source deliver the identical result as knowledge gleaned by direct perception (after all, even a person well versed in medicine would adopt the same dietary recommendation)?
    Yes, but what I'd really be doing is examining your doctor, not you. Do I believe that your doctor knows what he's doing, and that the change in diet will have the prescribed effect? Probably, because I can go test it myself, and there will be physical tests to prove it. Such does not exist with any faith-based belief. You are deprived of the ability to test with standard means.
    [/quote]

    the ability to do the physical tests is beyond the direct perception of persons bereft of the prerequisites, so to claim that it is all direct perception doesn't solve anything, since it is the direct perception of others that determines the issue, not yours (and not mine)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73 Re: How do you know if I am lying? 
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    209
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    Quote Originally Posted by Ezra

    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    so even in heaven you can only see the back of god?
    Yes or you will die if you see his face.
    do you realize how ridiculous what you just said sounds - at th every least I doubt you could find a verse in the bible that says this

    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    why would seeing god's face cause one to die? (and how would you know this unless god came to our sphere in the first place?)
    OK it said that in the bible. Do i have to repeat that again?
    perhaps you could repeat the verse number .... it would help us accept that you are not making things up in the name of religion
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    where?
    and that still doesn't explain why seeing god would cause one to die - at the very least you would think that an omnipotent personality could at the very least have the ability to interact with people without being the cause of their death
    Yes the bible says it. Read READ then ask questions.
    if you have read it and cannot even find the verse number, much less explain it (assuming of course that you do read the bible in the first place) why should I be inspired to read it?


    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    ok - no problem
    Ok still haven't found it yet but wait.
    :?[/quote]


    What I am not even good at this stuff. I just started a few months ago and i am not a christian yet but i will be soon. Also my older brother can bring you guys down. You will Seee I will get him on here one day.
    You atheist are are always denying the truth and don't want to here the truth its like you closing your ears.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    209
    And don't even say oh i am scared or i will say ahhhhh... i feel sorry for you . You should go to your mama.
    You atheist are are always denying the truth and don't want to here the truth its like you closing your ears.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •