resolving god

[Advocate]

[quote=Skepdick post_id=502760 time=1615919591 user_id=17350]
How exactly do you validate that the patient actually feels better?
[/quote]

That's my point. If you cannot, it's indistinguishable from fiction. Physical, even psychological effects can be verified externally, even if not sufficiently. God cannot.

[Skepdick]

That's my point. If you cannot, it's indistinguishable from fiction.

And my point is that "verification" for a placebo is self-reporting of the patient saying they feel better. You take their word for it!

So why is self-reporting sufficient for this, but it's not sufficient for other claims?

Physical, even psychological effects can be verified externally, even if not sufficiently. God cannot.

You are just moving your own goal posts.

What do you count as "external verification"?

[DPMartin]

All experiences are real but not necessarily Of something real. To be externally meaningful the idea must be externally validated. To say that one has experienced god coveys no information about reality.

your wrong there because knowledge is a part of reality, that isn't physical or has no physical appearance. righteousness is a part of reality and has no physical appearance, or understanding or wisdom so on and so forth. one might even say the spoken word has no real physical appearance, only in the use of the physical but the words themselves have no physical appearance, and words are a part of reality.

and disregarding some yahoo who says they experienced God under the influence of some substance, doesn't mean that is the case for all. only the few.

[Lacewing]

Okay... no offense intended... but I'm going to speak straight-forward in response to the following statements...

isn't knowledge or knowing a result of experience?

There are countless experiences and claims of knowledge as a result of those experiences. Yes?

Whatever works for each person is apparently what stands for them, and what they stand for. Someone's apparent "experience" of a god does not indicate any particular truth or reality beyond themselves. There can be many reasons why people "experience" what they do. They can call that experience "truth", and insist that it is an ultimate truth that applies to all... but that requires disregarding all other "experience" and "knowledge" to the CONTRARY.

How can ultimate complete truth disregard anything? If you can't see the connection of and throughout ALL, you may actually be seeing very little at all: opting for specific stories and division, rather than considering a unity that flows throughout all and manifests as all. Why would there be ultimate divisions? Humans, rather, create divisions to serve themselves.

one must experience the presence of God to know God or that there is a God and that could only be achieved with a living God, correct?

Countless claims are based on whatever conditions and story are necessary to support and maintain whatever any one might believe in. Beliefs are countless, as are the reasons for adopting them.

so genuine Christians have been proclaiming that experience (again genuine) for almost a couple a thousand years

Such claims are no more significant than those who have proclaimed other vast experiences (to the contrary) for thousands of years.

He see your heart like you see some ones face, there's no hiding anything.

Imagining a "he" -- instead of a "she" goddess, or a non-gender nature spirit throughout all, or anything else -- is simply the story you subscribe to. Isn't it easy to see that people subscribe to the stories that SERVE THEMSELVES for whatever reasons?

Why in the world would Christians think that THEY are the only ones to have profound experiences and knowledge of truth? It makes no sense in such a VAST manifestation of life and potential.

one can experience God and therefore know God

This claim is no more significant than any other claim based on someone's "experience" and "knowledge".

the bible is all about a people's experience with the Living God

This book is no more significant than any other books that humans have written based on their experiences and beliefs.

one should understand He is a Living God therefore can chose to reveal Himself to whom ever He pleases, when He pleases.

If you are one who this supposed "he" has revealed himself to... that makes you a "chosen one", among "others" who are NOT. This sounds self-glorifying. People who proclaim themselves to be chosen and "in the know" of some ultimate or godly truth, only "know" what they think/claim they "know", which is something that serves them, and which is not only necessarily divisive and limited, but actually no more significant than other seemingly "profound revelations" to the contrary which are countless in scope and nature.

It appears to me that stories about gods make the Universe very small and contrived in a way that serves man. And stories about "knowable" gods appear geared to serve to elevate man and his ego.

[DPMartin]

isn't knowledge or knowing a result of experience?

There are countless experiences and claims of knowledge as a result of those experiences. Yes?

but what if there's more that one who experience the same experience as in knowledge (knowing) of God? same God mind you.

also it seems you believe its your prerogative to believe what you want, you're wrong, very wrong. there is the Truth and everything else that is not the truth is a lie, and don't think to say there's more that one truth. na, that don't even make sense for in a case like this one, if this is true, than the other is not because its not the same as the first true.

doesn't matter how many flavors of poison you think to chose from the result is the same, whereas the truth will not kill you.

[Advocate]

[quote=DPMartin post_id=503025 time=1616080539 user_id=13848]
[quote=Lacewing post_id=502966 time=1616039732 user_id=11228]


[quote=DPMartin post_id=502684 time=1615909176 user_id=13848]
isn't knowledge or knowing a result of experience?[/quote]
There are countless [i]experiences[/i] and claims of knowledge as a result of [i]those[/i] experiences. Yes?
[/quote]

but what if there's more that one who experience the same experience as in knowledge (knowing) of God? same God mind you.

also it seems you believe its your prerogative to believe what you want, you're wrong, very wrong. there is the Truth and everything else that is not the truth is a lie, and don't think to say there's more that one truth. na, that don't even make sense for in a case like this one, if this is true, than the other is not because its not the same as the first true.

doesn't matter how many flavors of poison you think to chose from the result is the same, whereas the truth will not kill you.
[/quote]

"A truth" makes sense as an instance of truth, meaning one fact, one perspective, one analogy, etc. "The Truth" makes sense as the understanding of reality that never gets refuted. Reality is our consensus experience.

[Lacewing]

isn't knowledge or knowing a result of experience?

There are countless experiences and claims of knowledge as a result of those experiences. Yes?

but what if there's more that one who experience the same experience as in knowledge (knowing) of God? same God mind you.

Well of course there are countless patterns and shared ideas and experiences. Each believing themselves to be right and the most true.

also it seems you believe its your prerogative to believe what you want, you're wrong, very wrong. there is the Truth and everything else that is not the truth is a lie, and don't think to say there's more that one truth. na, that don't even make sense for in a case like this one, if this is true, than the other is not because its not the same as the first true.

What? Is that supposed to make sense? You make a claim of what "the truth" is, and claim that no one else can know/believe another or a greater truth?

[Advocate]

Knowledge is justified belief, and there is only one Truth despite there being infinite perspectives on it. If you can accept these rather mundane definitions, the whole matter basically clears itself up.

[Lacewing]

Knowledge is justified belief, and there is only one Truth despite there being infinite perspectives on it. If you can accept these rather mundane definitions, the whole matter basically clears itself up.

Is the "one truth" static and knowable in human terms?

[Skepdick]

Knowledge is justified belief.

That's a non-starter.

How do you know that your belief is "justified"?
How do you know what "justification" is?

[Advocate]

[quote=Lacewing post_id=503161 time=1616170149 user_id=11228]
[quote=Advocate post_id=503158 time=1616169866 user_id=15238]
Knowledge is justified belief, and there is only one Truth despite there being infinite perspectives on it. If you can accept these rather mundane definitions, the whole matter basically clears itself up.
[/quote]
Is the "one truth" static and knowable in human terms?
[/quote]

No, change is the universal substrate of the universe.
And yes, knowledge is justified belief and there is always a purpose contingency - good Enough.

edit: Actually truth only exists in human terms, it's an entirely human concept. The only other creatures out there presumably intelligent enough to understand anything remotely similar would be the cephelopods, dolphins, great apes, and a few birds, and whatever understanding they have of reality, it doesn't have the same components as truth does to us.

[Advocate]

[quote=Skepdick post_id=503162 time=1616170431 user_id=17350]
[quote=Advocate post_id=503158 time=1616169866 user_id=15238]
Knowledge is justified belief.
[/quote]
That's a non-starter.

How do you know that your belief is "justified"?
How do you know what "justification" is?
[/quote]

Critical thinking skills, understanding the relative value of evidence, Bayesian reasoning, cognitive biases, and logical fallacies. That's how you know.

[Skepdick]

Critical thinking skills, understanding the relative value of evidence, Bayesian reasoning, cognitive biases, and logical fallacies. That's how you know.

None of that matters in practice very often.

Logical fallacies are necessary for heuristic reasoning.
Bayesian reasoning requires inputs (principles, priors)
Evidence is not very valuable if you are trying to disconfirm, not confirm your beliefs.

Depending on the task at hand different modes of reasoning are possible.

If you are a reductionist you might default to Occam's razor.
If you are a holist might choose Hickam's dictum.

[Advocate]

[quote=Skepdick post_id=503178 time=1616174118 user_id=17350]
[quote=Advocate post_id=503169 time=1616171993 user_id=15238]
Critical thinking skills, understanding the relative value of evidence, Bayesian reasoning, cognitive biases, and logical fallacies. That's how you know.
[/quote]
None of that matters in practice very often.

Logical fallacies are necessary for heuristic reasoning.
Bayesian reasoning requires inputs (principles, priors)
Evidence is not very valuable if you are trying to disconfirm, not confirm your beliefs.

Depending on the task at hand different modes of reasoning are possible.

If you are a reductionist you might default to Occam's razor.
If you are a holist might choose Hickam's dictum.
[/quote]

There's no conflict there. "Things should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler." That only means there is an additional necessity to understand where you draw the line, and why. In medicine, just as any other arena, it's a resource balancing equation.

[Skepdick]

There's no conflict there. "Things should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler." That only means there is an additional necessity to understand where you draw the line, and why. In medicine, just as any other arena, it's a resource balancing equation.

The conflict is literally in the number of "valid hypotheses" you admit at the end of "thinking".

Occam's razor literally dismisses hypotheses with too many variables. Unlike diagnosticians.