- #36
Zero
Being open-minded is fine...being open-minded to evidence, that is. If the evidence points one way, we need to follow that way to its conclusion. How do you follow lack of evidence?
Which evidence is that? That which is external, but can only be evaluated internally, because this is the only means by which you have to evaluate anything? Hence I'm afraid all you can really do is chalk it up to "subjective experience." Which, need not be a problem though, if in fact you understand this is an honest assessment of how the mind works.Originally posted by Zero
Being open-minded is fine...being open-minded to evidence, that is. If the evidence points one way, we need to follow that way to its conclusion. How do you follow lack of evidence?
Blah blah blah...your created mythological god again?Originally posted by Iacchus32
Which evidence is that? That which is external, but can only be evaluated internally, because this is the only means by which you have to evaluate anything? Hence I'm afraid all you can really do is chalk it up to "subjective experience." Which, need not be a problem though, if in fact you understand this is an honest assessment of how the mind works.
In which case it's this same process, that is if you will begin to listen, that will give you insight into yourself and just about everything else. In fact, you can say this is the means by which God speaks to you man (through the means of honest assessment). Although granted, you need not necessarily make the "God association" in order to understand who you are.
The "evidence" is within. Always has and always will be. Now, if you wish to associate that evidence with the "myth of evolution," then that's another story I guess? ...Originally posted by Zero
Blah blah blah...your created mythological god again?
By believing?Originally posted by Iacchus32
…So what is the evidence to anything if we are unable to mirror it within? How do we "know" that it's true? …
The counter argument to ‘knowing’ there is a deity through wholly personal inner experience goes something like this;The "evidence" is within. Always has and always will be.
But don't you believe we're endowed with the capabilties to see things for ourselves? Or else how would we be able to know "the truth" of anything? Indeed, seeing is believing.Originally posted by BoulderHead
By believing?
The established method is to validate the evidence under controlled conditions by independent inquires. This is why it is natural even for idealist minded individuals to relate their experiences/observations to others…
Sure you can, if you've been given the capacity to experience the same thing.Ask yourself; can I validate that which is within another?
Truth is revealed to us through our experience, and unless it is revealed to us in this way, then there is nothing to say we should have to accept it. Again, seeing is believing.The counter argument to ‘knowing’ there is a deity through wholly personal inner experience goes something like this;
1a) you tell me that you stubbed your toe and it is swollen.
This I can accept at face value.
1b) you then tell me the reason you stubbed your toe was due, say, to the actions of another individual.
This I cannot accept at face value.
2a) you tell me you have had an overpowering and irresistible feeling that you have been in the presence of a deity.
This I can accept at face value.
2b) you then tell me a deity was responsible for the feeling you had.
This I cannot accept at face value.
Maybe I’m just not ‘seeing’ the same thing you are…Originally posted by Iacchus32
But don't you believe we're endowed with the capabilties to see things for ourselves? Or else how would we be able to know "the truth" of anything? Indeed, seeing is believing.
What do you suppose are the implications of the word “if” in the above?Sure you can, if you've been given the capacity to experience the same thing.
Mistakes and falsity are likewise revealed, too.Truth is revealed to us through our experience…
Believing isn’t necessarily the same thing as knowing.…and unless it is revealed to us in this way, then there is nothing to say we should have to accept it. Again, seeing is believing.
It doesn't count as evidence unless it can be shared with everyone, and everyone can agree on it...and that's without brainwashing or shrooms.Originally posted by Iacchus32
The "evidence" is within. Always has and always will be. Now, if you wish to associate that evidence with the "myth of evolution," then that's another story I guess? ...
So what is the evidence to anything if we are unable to mirror it within? How do we "know" that it's true? Isn't that afterall what makes us Human, our ability to do this?
An interesting point that was brought to my attention just recently was the beliefs of the Pragmatist Philosopher John Dewey. Being someone heavily influenced by the discussions in these forums, when told that Dewey's stance was that there is no distinction between Inner and Outer, that the world that exists 'out there' is precisely the world we live in, and that's all there is, I questioned it.Originally posted by Iacchus32
The "evidence" is within.
That would be blind faith then. In which case seeing is believing.Originally posted by BoulderHead
Belief does not require as a prerequisite, the ability to see.
This is purely a myth. Since when are we going to get even two people to agree 100% on anything? It'll never happen ... except perhaps in "somebody else's" mind.Originally posted by Zero
It doesn't count as evidence unless it can be shared with everyone, and everyone can agree on it...and that's without brainwashing or shrooms.
Well he obviously wasn't a spiritualist. For if there is a spiritual side to our being, "interiorly," then the distinction must be made -- or, will be made, when we pass on. Of course to a staunch materialist, this doesn't bear any further consideration.Originally posted by Another God
An interesting point that was brought to my attention just recently was the beliefs of the Pragmatist Philosopher John Dewey. Being someone heavily influenced by the discussions in these forums, when told that Dewey's stance was that there is no distinction between Inner and Outer, that the world that exists 'out there' is precisely the world we live in, and that's all there is, I questioned it.
Oh, I see what you mean. And I didn't see, taste, smell, feel or hear anything of it. Yes, seeing is believing.Originally posted by THANOS
i can believe what i do not see. Seeing isn't the only sense we have. So blind faith is what you call those who believe without seeing? You can smell, touch, hear, and taste things also. If there was an apple pie in a picth black room I am sure you can believe that it is apple by by simply feeling, smelling and tasting it. Even your eyes can deceive you. Relying on your eyes to tell you what's true is being blind.
I once saw Siegfried & Roy make an elephant appear out of thin air. Seeing is believing!Originally posted by Iacchus32
That would be blind faith then. In which case seeing is believing.
Originally posted by blu
Explain
In case this is a forum forum were we all know each other, I am Blu,