Philosophy Now Forum

Dubious wrote: Regarding an almost total lack of significance, now & THEN intersect a lot.

Both now and then are of no significance? Wow. Aren't you fun at parties!

Seriously, though...do you suppose that's true? Are both "now" and "then" of no significance? How does that belief work out for you? Is it getting you by?

thedoc wrote:Yes, many years ago my wife and I, along with many others, had an experience that we could only attribute to the presence of the Holy Spirit. ...

Why wasn't it the presence of Odin?

Immanuel Can wrote:Both now and then are of no significance? Wow. Aren't you fun at parties!

Seriously, though...do you suppose that's true? Are both "now" and "then" of no significance? How does that belief work out for you? Is it getting you by?

Getting by is not an option if I have to force myself into believing something which ain't believable. For me, that's a sign of desperation. In life there's much which is of zero significance its denouement being the conclusion of it all. That's why I say they there are points on the graph where both life and death converge to a neutrality of zero significance.

...aside which, the "slow boil" of time eventually evaporates ALL significance actual or imagined including our most cherished belief in God which NOW remains only fractionally significant, fated to become even less sensory like some reminiscent odor reminding one of nothing more than a once accepted colossal abstraction.

Immanuel Can wrote:
Existential evidence is notoriously compelling to the person who has actually HAD the particular experience in question

It is not really evidence as such if it cannot be demonstrated since there is no objective means of knowing how true it is. I most certainly would
not believe any ones evidence on that basis and especially if there were more plausible alternatives. Now people can think or believe what ever
they want but this does not automatically make it evidence. It has to be capable of replication and inter subjectivity and objective and rigorous analysis. Conveniently moving the goalposts by claiming there are different types is simply not acceptable. The word has a specific meaning and
as such it is the only one which should be used. None other. And so anyone telling me that they have evidence for God will be given a dictionary

thedoc wrote:
Now I agree that the odds of rolling any number 200 times in a row is the same but those odds are very
high for any number. If this is what surreptitious57 is saying then he and IC are talking past each other

All possible permutations are equal regardless of whether or not anyone see a pattern in them
Dice have no understanding of the emotional reasoning which humans employ in their thinking

A sequence of 200 with no pattern is equally as probable as a sequence of 200 with a pattern
And as the distinction between them is both superfluous and confusing it should not be made

Dubious wrote:Getting by is not an option if I have to force myself into believing something which ain't believable.

I wouldn't think you should. That's good policy, as long as you're absolutely certain of what is truly "believable," and not, say, dismissing anything offhandedly or on weak information.

surreptitious57 wrote: It is not really evidence as such if it cannot be demonstrated since there is no objective means of knowing how true it is.

To whom? It's certainly very clear to the experiencer.

Now people can think or believe what ever they want but this does not automatically make it evidence.

Yeah, that's what I said: it's poor evidence for anyone who is not the experiencer.

It has to be capable of replication and inter subjectivity and objective and rigorous analysis.

Many things we consider real are not capable of your test. Your wife/husband's disposition, for example: does he or she truly "love" you? No empirical test will confirm it "rigorously". You're going to have to take something on faith there.

Conveniently moving the goalposts by claiming there are different types is simply not acceptable.

Rubbish. It's regular scientific practice -- and it's not "moving the goalposts, but rather stipulating a test appropriate to a particular subject matter. Science does that all the time. The test of linear measurement is no good for liquids, the test of volume measurement no good for distances, and so on.

The word has a specific meaning and as such it is the only one which should be used. None other. And so anyone telling me that they have evidence for God will be given a dictionary.

Good luck with that. Even in the dictionary, "evidence" has several definitions, ranging from "facts," to "testimony," to "ostensible effects" to "manifest," and so on. It's a noun, it's a verb, and it changes its content depending on its context. So pick a dictionary and check: you'll see.

Immanuel Can wrote:..."evidence" has several definitions...

True enough, but the physical evidence for god is of the same form that presents under the Christmas Tree is evidence for Santa Claus.

"Evidence" to the experiencer does not equate to broader truths nor evidence for all. Each experiencer can fabricate all sorts of things that they become completely intoxicated by and convinced of. Each experiencer lives in their own delusion/vision to varying degrees, while arguing with others that their specific delusion is "real" beyond themselves and their vision is complete. This simply cannot be true. CLEARLY, perception is as vast and varied as all the beings who come and go. The idea that such can be identified and known as a single truth for all is surely a desperate quest of the ego for legitimacy and control.

Arising_uk wrote:

thedoc wrote:Yes, many years ago my wife and I, along with many others, had an experience that we could only attribute to the presence of the Holy Spirit. ...

Why wasn't it the presence of Odin?

That might have been the name, but I didn't get the opportunity to ask.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Horror_at_37,000_Feet

In the movie Shatner played Paul Kovalik a defrocked priest who had lost his faith that God existed. His effort was to confront the demons thereby proving the existence of Satan, and if Satan existed, then so must God.

thedoc wrote:That might have been the name, but I didn't get the opportunity to ask. ...

Then how do you know it was this 'Holy Spirit'?

Arising_uk wrote:

thedoc wrote:That might have been the name, but I didn't get the opportunity to ask. ...

Then how do you know it was this 'Holy Spirit'?

I don't, but that is the label I applied to what I observed. And since you weren't there, (as far as I know), you are just being critical of what you know nothing about.

thedoc wrote:I don't, but that is the label I applied to what I observed. And since you weren't there, (as far as I know), you are just being critical of what you know nothing about.

No, I perfectly accept that you have had the experience. It's that you appear to think it confirms a specific metaphysical belief and yet in the same words agree that the label could be wrong. So why believe that it was this 'Holy Spirit' and all the baggage that comes with it?

Arising_uk wrote:

thedoc wrote:I don't, but that is the label I applied to what I observed. And since you weren't there, (as far as I know), you are just being critical of what you know nothing about.

No, I perfectly accept that you have had the experience. It's that you appear to think it confirms a specific metaphysical belief and yet in the same words agree that the label could be wrong. So why believe that it was this 'Holy Spirit' and all the baggage that comes with it?

What difference does it make? I believe that God exists and that is as far as I am willing to go. If you want to quibble about the details, please be my guest. I don't know and will not argue about it.

FYI, I attach no baggage to the term, if you want to, so be it. It is only a label that I attach to an experience that demonstrates the existence of God to me.

thedoc wrote:

Arising_uk wrote:

thedoc wrote:I don't, but that is the label I applied to what I observed. And since you weren't there, (as far as I know), you are just being critical of what you know nothing about.

No, I perfectly accept that you have had the experience. It's that you appear to think it confirms a specific metaphysical belief and yet in the same words agree that the label could be wrong. So why believe that it was this 'Holy Spirit' and all the baggage that comes with it?

What difference does it make? I believe that God exists and that is as far as I am willing to go. If you want to quibble about the details, please be my guest. I don't know and will not argue about it.

Then don't claim to have evidence and expect others to believe you. Personally I couldn't give a stuff what nonsense people believe as long as it doesn't interfere with others. Unfortunately, kristians insist on having a powerful say in politics and laws that should be secular, and shoving their personal beliefs down everyone else's throats. IC doesn't like abortion? Then don't have one!