Post Reply
Page 19 of 19  •  Prev 1 ... 14 15 16 17 18 19
Switch to Forum Live View What deluded Athiest post
2 years ago  ::  Jul 09, 2012 - 7:09PM #181
teilhard
Posts: 51,417

I hold an "Empirical" Understanding of "Knowledge," i.e., that Knowledge derives from "Experience" ...


I DON'T necessarily IDENTIFY "Knowledge" and "Truth" but they ARE related ...


BOTH Knowledge and my UNDERSTANDING of "Truth" are subject not only to Personal Experience but also of course to Reflection (which is a TOTAL Thought Process that includes -- but is not LIMITED to or BY -- "Reason") ...


Jul 9, 2012 -- 6:51PM, Nino0814 wrote:


Jul 8, 2012 -- 10:03PM, teilhard wrote:


***LOL ... No, indeed ...


I'm NOT interested in having my "Rationale for my Beliefs" subjected to your "Evaluation,"  AS  IF  you're my Teacher grading my Papers or Correcting my Tests ...


Instead, I'm "into" mutually RESPECT-full Conversation ...



I meant nothing disrespectful in my question.  My evaluation is a consideration of some view based on my own analysis.   If someone had asked me this question several years ago I would have presented to them the Wesleyan Quadrilateral.  It provided the "filter or lens" that I employed to given my informed religious worldview. Now I would point to Naturalism and the scientific method for my current worldview.


I assume, based on all your posts, that you consider truth to be something that is directly available to you (Mysticism).  Your comments on subjectivity, and your vague answers, makes me assume this, but I thoughtyou might want to clarify your source for my "consideration".  







Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jul 09, 2012 - 7:34PM #182
teilhard
Posts: 51,417

***Eureka ... !!!


(Give the Man a Cigar ... !!!)


Jul 9, 2012 -- 6:57PM, JCarlin wrote:


Jul 9, 2012 -- 5:13PM, teilhard wrote:

You have essentially attempted to DEFINE "God" Out-of-Reality ...


Congratulations ... !!!


A trivial exercise, as ***you refuse to define God in any way real or not. 





Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jul 09, 2012 - 9:16PM #183
Nino0814
Posts: 1,754

Jul 8, 2012 -- 11:18PM, ctcss wrote:


You may want to consider whether naturalism fits at all within the view (both teachings and actions) that Jesus was trying to express through his ministry.... 



Jesus new nothing of naturalism or supernaturalism.  To people of his time God, and / or gods, spirits, and other forces, were what control life.  Supernaturalism assumes naturalism.  Therefore naturalism would not have been something Jesus would have understood.


I do not believe in anything supernatural at work in the universe.  There is no evidence for it and their is evidence against it (if one assumes that God cares for those who pray to him).   If there is a God that cares for us then God must not be able to work in space and time; such a god is unknowable.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jul 09, 2012 - 9:36PM #184
Nino0814
Posts: 1,754

Jul 9, 2012 -- 7:09PM, teilhard wrote:


I hold an "Empirical" Understanding of "Knowledge," i.e., that Knowledge derives from "Experience" ...


I DON'T necessarily IDENTIFY "Knowledge" and "Truth" but they ARE related ...


BOTH Knowledge and my UNDERSTANDING of "Truth" are subject not only to Personal Experience but also of course to Reflection (which is a TOTAL Thought Process that includes -- but is not LIMITED to or BY -- "Reason") ...



What method do you use to determine whether there is a God?  How can a person empirically know [knowledge derived from experience] a transcendent God?  


Christian theology taught that God is primarily understood via revelation (as revealed in Jesus and scripture).   Yet empirical evidence informs us that the scriptures are not historically reliable, much of it violates our modern moral conscience, and most of the details of Jesus life are completely unreliable.  The Wesleyian Quadrilaterial has only "one leg" left (reason).   Reason will lead a modern informed thinker to be a Naturalist.


A mystics inner light is not something that I can know for myself.  I would either trust that the mystic is gaining true insights or not.  Yet the mystics do not all agree!  What method do I use to determine (evaluate) the mystic's claims of receiving a revelation?


Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jul 09, 2012 - 9:38PM #185
Ken
Posts: 33,859

Jul 9, 2012 -- 6:52PM, Sacrificialgoddess wrote:


Jul 9, 2012 -- 4:43PM, Ken wrote:


Jul 9, 2012 -- 2:52PM, Eudaimonist wrote:


What is the taste of Cthulhu?



Like canned mackerel, but redolent of the abominable foetor of the nethermost Abyss.




Yum. 



For a quick and easy party snack when unexpected guests drop in, mix Cthulhu with Philadelphia Cream Cheese and spread on crispy Cracked Pepper and Olive Oil Triscuits. Garnish with a Spanish olive for an extra festive touch. Double yum!

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jul 09, 2012 - 9:46PM #186
teilhard
Posts: 51,417

***My "Method ... to determine" [ ................. ] is the SAME Method I use to "determine" whether "The Flavour of a Quark" is that of a Ripe Strawberry or that of a Shot of Vodka (hint: it MUST be ONE or The OTHER -- It CANNOT be both, nor can it be NEITHER ...)


Jul 9, 2012 -- 9:36PM, Nino0814 wrote:


Jul 9, 2012 -- 7:09PM, teilhard wrote:


I hold an "Empirical" Understanding of "Knowledge," i.e., that Knowledge derives from "Experience" ...


I DON'T necessarily IDENTIFY "Knowledge" and "Truth" but they ARE related ...


BOTH Knowledge and my UNDERSTANDING of "Truth" are subject not only to Personal Experience but also of course to Reflection (which is a TOTAL Thought Process that includes -- but is not LIMITED to or BY -- "Reason") ...



What ***method do you use to determine whether there is a God?  How can a person empirically know [knowledge derived from experience] a transcendent God?  


Christian theology taught that God is primarily understood via revelation (as revealed in Jesus and scripture).   Yet empirical evidence informs us that the scriptures are not historically reliable, much of it violates our modern moral conscience, and most of the details of Jesus life are completely unreliable.  The Wesleyian Quadrilaterial has only "one leg" left (reason).   Reason will lead a modern informed thinker to be a Naturalist.


A mystics inner light is not something that I can know for myself.  I would either trust that the mystic is gaining true insights or not.  Yet the mystics do not all agree!  What ***method do I use to determine (evaluate) the mystic's claims of receiving a revelation?






Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 19 of 19  •  Prev 1 ... 14 15 16 17 18 19
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook