Experiencing 'proof'

[Darkstar]

I have to admit that at first, I think Drich really fucked with my mind.

Expirience translates to Erfahrung - which is more a technical and scientific term in our language.

No one here would actualy call a dream a "expirience" since expirience\Erfahrung is a term reserved for "expiriences" out which one has learned lessons.
One is a good engeneer because of long time work expirience. for example.

Or is the use of the term "expirience" the same in english and Drich is the one whos mind is fucked?

It can mean both. An experience would be like something that happened to you, whereas experience would be having many experiences with a certain thing and thus becoming knowledgeable about it. Here:

ex·pe·ri·ence (k-spîr-ns)
n.
1. The apprehension of an object, thought, or emotion through the senses or mind: a child's first experience of snow.
2.
a. Active participation in events or activities, leading to the accumulation of knowledge or skill: a lesson taught by experience; a carpenter with experience in roof repair.
b. The knowledge or skill so derived.
3.
a. An event or a series of events participated in or lived through.
b. The totality of such events in the past of an individual or group.

Drich is clearly referring to definition 1.

[Something completely different]

Thank you Darkstar, I really appreciate that explaination.


We use the term "Erlebnis" to describe things such as dreams, hangovers and other which do not teach a person anything of value.
Whilest "Erfahrung" is purely reserved for expiriences which bring knowlege to the individual.

Seperates the relevant from the irrelevant.

[Darkstar]

Thank you Darkstar, I really appreciate that explaination.


We use the term "Erlebnis" to describe things such as dreams, hangovers and other which do not teach a person anything of value.
Whilest "Erfahrung" is purely reserved for expiriences which bring knowlege to the individual.

Seperates the relevant from the irrelevant.

I think that the point of contention is that Drich is trying to argue that a dream of god is Erfahrung, when it is clearly Erlebnis. (You even specifically mentioned dreams as an example of Erlebnis.)
Why does he insist on promoting this embarrassingly bad argument? Min with hilariously blunt answer in 3...2...1...

[Minimalist]

Erfahrung is a term reserved for "expiriences" out which one has learned lessons.

That leaves Drippy out in the cold. That boy never learned shit.

[Cyberman]

That's why he's doomed to repeat shit.

[Cato]

Isn't he just stating the argument from religious experience but in more words?

Jeff, you aren't getting it. Drich is sharing his experiences. I don't doubt his experiences, but you claim they are 'religious' experiences. The point that I have made is that the experiences only become 'religious' because the person who experienced the event attributes the cause to a religious causal agent (It's also strange that the experience is only attributed to the god that is most prevalent in close geographical and familial boundaries). Knowing that others experience the same type of event, but accept other explanations, means that the experiences aren't in and of themselves 'religious'. The assignment comes after the fact.

1. When people experience X they have good reason to believe X exists unless they have reason to think otherwise. (Experiences are treated as innocent until proven guilty)

I have no significant issue with this statement unless someone is attempting to make a dream a reality. I don't think this is your meaning so I'll simply agree.

2. Experiences occur which seem to their subjects to be of God.

I'm ok with this as a logical statement. The subject invokes the idea of God (capital G, a very particular god) as a causal agent, but God has yet to make an appearance. At this point I take the subject at his/her word that he/she thinks the event can be attributed to God, not that God is the actual cause.

3. There are no good reasons for thinking all or most experiences which seem to their subjects to be of God are delusive.

This is where your argument starts to come off the tracks. The experiences aren't delusive, but constantly invoking God in favor of other reasonble explanations is a prime example of delusion.

4. It is rational to believe that at least some experiences which seem to their subjects to be of God really are experiences of God.

Now, you are off the tracks. There is logical consistency in the statement, but the statement means nothing since you insert God as an a priori existent; therefore, this argument is meaningless. The entire point was to use experience as a method of proving God and the only way you can do it is to shove his/her assumed existence into a deductive sequence.

5. It is rational to believe that God exists.

Apparently not.

[Minimalist]

5. It is rational to believe that God exists.

The irrational is never rational.

[Simon Moon]

Isn't he just stating the argument from religious experience but in more words?

Something like:

1. When people experience X they have good reason to believe X exists unless they have reason to think otherwise. (Experiences are treated as innocent until proven guilty)
2. Experiences occur which seem to their subjects to be of God.
3. There are no good reasons for thinking all or most experiences which seem to their subjects to be of God are delusive.
4. It is rational to believe that at least some experiences which seem to their subjects to be of God really are experiences of God.
5. It is rational to believe that God exists.

This forces you to acknowledge that Hindus, Zoroastrians, Muslims, etc that claim to have personal experiences of their god have good reason to believe they exist.

Unless of course you are going to play the 'special pleading' card.

1. When people experience X they have good reason to believe X exists unless they have reason to think otherwise. (Experiences are treated as innocent until proven guilty)

2. Experiences occur which seem to their Hindu subjects to be Shiva.

3. There is no good reasons for thinking that all or most experiences which seem to their subjects to be of Shiva are delusional.

4. It is rational to believe that at least some experiences which seem to their subjects to be of Shiva really are experiences of Shiva.

5. It is rational to believe Shiva exists.

I'm sure glad that's cleared up.

[Darkstar]

I'm guessing there's a reason that proof is in quotation marks in the thread title...

[Drich]

I have read all of your posts, and to the one that address my OP they all seemed to be based on the idea that my experience is my experience, or that a dream is not to be considered experience, etc.. The bigger picture here has nothing to do with what I have experienced, as this is what God taylored for me. It is what I needed to establish a faith and subsequently maintain it. The point of this post is to inform you all that this same level of attention has been offered to you as well. If you indeed A/S/K for it/Holy Spirit.