@Gae Bolga
I'll attempt and answer to your 3 questions
I agree that natural features aren't a necessity for any non-natural experiencer, I just don't see them as being mutually exclusive especially by function. I even expressly stated that phenomenal senses aren't necessarily present in ghosts. Should we throw up the classic platonic example of seeing yourself in a mirror with no head, or body. Your body sees and your soul can see. The problem is the "We" you define is a materialist "we", and your statement is wrong. "We", as physical selves, do need eyes to see. I'm just stating that a soul might also see in function without the same physical machinations necessary for the realist. So maybe that's the reason behind you're meaningful tag on non-natural? It might not be meaningfully non-natural, while in a state; but in an eternal state or in an eternal realm it becomes critically meaningful. Are you heading down the path of People have eyes to see, ghost's don't have eyes so they can't see, ...?
I do believe in "this because I believe in that" and it does actually "fit my beliefs about the nature of the all" as I have probed thus far. Not because it's a rationalization bigger than I believe in this because this experientially seems valid and answers more questions than idk, but I'm willing to explore other positions and pokes at your leisure.
My understanding of God is that He is of one substance.
I'll attempt and answer to your 3 questions
I agree that natural features aren't a necessity for any non-natural experiencer, I just don't see them as being mutually exclusive especially by function. I even expressly stated that phenomenal senses aren't necessarily present in ghosts. Should we throw up the classic platonic example of seeing yourself in a mirror with no head, or body. Your body sees and your soul can see. The problem is the "We" you define is a materialist "we", and your statement is wrong. "We", as physical selves, do need eyes to see. I'm just stating that a soul might also see in function without the same physical machinations necessary for the realist. So maybe that's the reason behind you're meaningful tag on non-natural? It might not be meaningfully non-natural, while in a state; but in an eternal state or in an eternal realm it becomes critically meaningful. Are you heading down the path of People have eyes to see, ghost's don't have eyes so they can't see, ...?
I do believe in "this because I believe in that" and it does actually "fit my beliefs about the nature of the all" as I have probed thus far. Not because it's a rationalization bigger than I believe in this because this experientially seems valid and answers more questions than idk, but I'm willing to explore other positions and pokes at your leisure.
My understanding of God is that He is of one substance.
"There ought to be a term that would designate those who actually follow the teachings of Jesus, since the word 'Christian' has been largely divorced from those teachings, and so polluted by fundamentalists that it has come to connote their polar opposite: intolerance, vindictive hatred, and bigotry." -- Philip Stater, Huffington Post
always working on cleaning my windows- me regarding Johari
always working on cleaning my windows- me regarding Johari