Do it yourself, make your own god

[phoenixthoth]

*nods

it used to all be considered one single thing and it was called philosophy, which means love of knowledge. philosophy unfortunately divided like a cellular structure in biology and people stopped using the entire subject of philosophy, which is all knowledge currently known, as their tools to discern what truth is. in my mind, philosophy is one subject with various branches not unlike a ... tree of knowledge. ;P

 

[Deeviant]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
In case you've forgotten, I gave you (in another thread) a rather lengthy (for a thread anyway) essay on the history of reported successes with inner experience practices. Do I have to repeat that every thread you and I talk in?

However, in this thread I am not the one making claims, it is you, so what is it I am required to prove? You claim one cannot know God, and one can actually prove that one can know God. My challenge is centered on that. Make your case please.

Part of the problem iswhat you seem to think constitutes proper logic. For instance, your statement "There is no logic in your claims of 'inner self' that is the nature of the entire concept of 'inner self.'" is an example of how virtually every one of your arguments go. Tell me, how exactly is that a legitimate refutation?

So you think the fact that science simply throws out untestable and unfalsifiable theories is illogical. Using what logic? You tell me it is wrong to use science and logic to examine your god theory, then you tell me I am being unreasonable and illogical by asking for any sort of evidence of your claims. Then you start talking about how you have something that allows you and not I to see "the truth(tm)"

You are accepting your theory as absolute truth, without considering the possibility that you might be wrong. Without any sort of objectivity(even though you for some reason claim you more objective than I), without separating your opinions, emotional needs, your ego from fact, how could you claim you are seeing truth?

A person who does not thinks themself capable of being wrong, does not have a very good chance of being right. I freely admit that I and indeed we(as a race) know very little, we are just in our infancy. But now we have a method of controlled evolution, and that is the scientific method.

Your "inner self," I would call your "intuition". I concede that I often use my intuition to tackle problems of science, however, as often as my intuition is correct, it is wrong. So, in order to be true to science(and to truth,) I use my intuition to arrive at a hypothesis then I test it with experimentation, sometimes when I'm right I get to bypass an long theory creation process, other times I go back to the drawing board.

Do you claim your intuition(or inner self if you'd like) is never wrong?

 

[Alliance]

I think one of the problems is that a lot of people are looking to believe in God the way they believe that 2+2 is 4 for instance. I think that believing in God is a different sort of belief that believing that 2+2 is 4. I know that 2+2 is 4 and I am pretty 100% sure that it is. I can see that easily.
However believing in God is a lot harder to do because we cannot see that god exists. I personally believe that god exists because of the theory that our universe is so amazing that it cannot have been formed by random chance. There was a better explanation for this if you've heard the story of the watch in the desert. Basically if you found a watch in the desert you would not assume it has been formed there by random chance. You would assume the watch has a maker and has been dropped there and if the watch has a maker, as the universe is so much more complicated than a watch, it must also have a maker. The guy who actually wrote this (William Paley I think) explained it a lot better than I do though.
It is fair to say that to believe this explanation requires a certain leap of faith. However, once you believe it I find examples of how the world cannot have formed by random chance everywhere.
I also used to be an atheist, before changing to an agnostic and now I believe in god. I still have problems when I'm in an especially questioning mood in maintaining my belief in god.
By the way, Phoenixthoth I was wondering, was there a specific moment or reason that you changed from being an atheist into believing in god?

Alliance

 

[phoenixthoth]

alliance,

i honestly don't remember when, or more importantly, how that occured. it just did.

Edit: alliance, 2+2=4 rests on UNPROVABLE AXIOMS.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Deeviant
So you think the fact that science simply throws out untestable and unfalsifiable theories is illogical. Using what logic? You tell me it is wrong to use science and logic to examine your god theory, then you tell me I am being unreasonable and illogical by asking for any sort of evidence of your claims. Then you start talking about how you have something that allows you and not I to see "the truth(tm)"

I have told you repeatedly why science is not a good test of certain inner experiences. But if you need to see it again, read my last post to Polly in Treat's "debunking 201" thread. I have also cited evidence (that long post on the history of inner practice). Have you yet studied that history so you can now speak with an informed opinion on the subject? We both know the answer to that question.

And then to say, "you start talking about how you have something that allows you and not I to see "the truth(tm)" is to mispresent me. I never said you couldn't see it. I do say you can't see it using the scientific method; rather, you need to develop new skills to see it.

Originally posted by Deeviant
You are accepting your theory as absolute truth, without considering the possibility that you might be wrong. Without any sort of objectivity . . . how could you claim you are seeing truth. . . . But now we have a method of controlled evolution, and that is the scientific method.

More misrepresentation of my views. I have been reporting to you both my experience and a long history of other's experience which contradict your theory. I have no absolute truths that I believe, which is exactly why I challenge your absolute statements about he infallibility of empircism.

Originally posted by Deeviant
Your "inner self," I would call your "intuition". I concede that I often use my intuition to tackle problems of science, however, as often as my intuition is correct, it is wrong. So, in order to be true to science(and to truth,) I use my intuition to arrive at a hypothesis then I test it with experimentation, sometimes when I'm right I get to bypass an long theory creation process, other times I go back to the drawing board. Do you claim your intuition(or inner self if you'd like) is never wrong?

First of all, to me it is just amazing that you condescend to call the inner self "intuition." Why? Because I have explained in pretty good detail the kind of effort it takes to become experienced with what I am talking about, yet after admitting you have no experience with it you are ready to redefine it in your own terms! Where is the humility, where is the openness to learning about something new? Why do you have to stick your uninformed opinion onto everything you hear that's outside what you believe in?

But for the sake of finding a common ground, let's say the inner experience I talk about is what you are labeling intuition. You said intuition helps you about half the time. Now, what if someone figured out a way to pay more careful attention to their intuition, actually found a way to practice developing it, and after years of hard work discovered that intuition was just the tip of the iceberg. Below the suface lay a potential conscious experience few people find out about because they are unwilling to do the work.

Then say this person comes to you and tells you that intuition has more to it than you think. You answer, "prove it in my laboratory." You want to subject him to esp tests, or have him predict the future, or maybe move pencils with his mind to prove what he experiences is real. He tells you that isn't what he discovered beneath the surface of intuition, but rather he found a realm unavailable to normal sense experience. It doesn't give one esp or future visions or telekinetic abilities, but instead it gives joy, contentment, and wisdom. But still you say, prove it in my laboratory. He says, that isn't how you find out about it, you find out about it by turning inward and practicing something. But again you say, prove it in my laboratory over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and . . .

You know, you don't have to believe what people say in order to investigate new ideas, or think about things with an open mind. Personally, I prefer to leave all my opinions open so they are ready to adjust as new information comes in.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by phoenixthoth
we're mostly all here to learn something and that makes us all worthy, in my humble opinion. people don't always rub one the right way, but that's life, folks.

Not everyone is here to learn. Some people are here to teach only. What they're teaching may or may not be worth anything.

 

[phoenixthoth]

i agree.

 

[Deeviant]

Or perhaps some people don't learn exactely the same way as everybody else.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Deeviant
Or perhaps some people don't learn exactely the same way as everybody else.

Perhaps, but it's hard to learn anything when you actually promote insults and discourage good philosophy. I just have to learn to ignore those people.

 

[Deeviant]

Originally posted by Fliption
Perhaps, but it's hard to learn anything when you actually promote insults and discourage good philosophy. I just have to learn to ignore those people.

You have added absolutely nothing to this disscussion, you only sit in the sidelines and throw thinly veiled insults my direction hoping something sticks. I think you should go to dictionary.com and look up the word hypocrite.

 

[Deeviant]

double post

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Deeviant
You have added absolutely nothing to this disscussion, you only sit in the sidelines and throw thinly veiled insults my direction hoping something sticks. I think you should go to dictionary.com and look up the word hypocrite.

Hmmm, you seem to be confused as I have not be referring to you at all. I was referring to my "zero" post and the responses that it received. Sorry you misunderstood.

BTW, I did go look up the word hypocrite but it didn't say anything about being loving, kind, intelligent and extremely good looking. So I don't think it has anything to do with me