Scientific knowledge versus spiritual knowledge

[LadyForCamus]

The addition of "spiritual" to "knowledge" is meaningless in all contexts unless you're talking about knowledge of whisky, brandy, rum, vodka, etc.

Nonsense; that is to say that none acquired any knowledge of any sort prior to refined scientific methodology. That's absolutely bullshit. Sorry

Peace

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

Look, the fact that the scientific method hasn't been around since the beginning of time, doesn't transform everything that came before it into magic and mysticism. The natural world was still natural before the scientific method. It just took humans time to learn and apply it. Stop using it as an excuse!

[popsthebuilder]

Rythm,


Never said I couldn't articulate it. Actually have things that I wrote that same day after it happened that match up with scripture in general meaning even though I never read a bible prior to being saved, or for about 4 years afterwards.

I see, so your limited human comprehension can articulate the reality of an experience with god (and it even matches scripture, bonus!)?  

Make up your mind about the limits of humanity before you get back to me.  When people disagree with your god concept you seem to think that we're fundamentally limited.  Well guess what cupcake, if that's true, it would also apply to you and your experience.  

As stated; the verification is generally only to the individual and as such may very well be laughable to you.

Yes, a special kind of verification....... that isn't verifiable........ is, indeed, laughable to me.

Most relievers in GOD, especially Christians do not approve of my views. Don't assume things about me please. It makes you seem foolish.

You're totally right, you're a unique snowflake...we've never heard your wishy washy shit before.  You, and your fellow christers may not see each other as peers...but I'm an outsider, and your little disagreements seem irrelevant to me.  Distinguish yourself.....and protip...calling me a fool for perceiving you as a common believer for having acted like a common believer won't accomplish that.  I've seen it and heard it before.  Personally, I'd just suggest that you make peace with what you are, rather than fantasize about being a religious revolutionary.

A true follower under God by way of Crist doesn't lie, about it as that us the only unforgivable sin(blasphemy against the holy spirit).

Guess that means you aren't a true follower, huh?

You've claimed receipt of a package that was never sent.

Never said I was anything special, at all. Please don't insinuate such.

No, at this particular time I am not wholly along the narrow path, or wholly under the direction of God.

You contest that your own realities verified through your own existence with your own cognition is laughable!

That's a shame. We experience and have the ability to act due to significance, potential, and responsibility. If you can't trust your own experiences when tested honestly without regard for self interest then you must feel rather futile. Are you nihilistic?

Peace

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

[LadyForCamus]

I find it very annoying when theists play fast and loose with the definition of the word "knowledge."

A common claim around AF is that our lack of belief in God is the result of some spiritual knowledge gap; that the information about God is right in front of the atheist's face but he chooses not to see it; that he is missing important information due to a narrow, empiricist world view.

I've seen it posed a couple different ways, such as with flowery language like: "you will know the divine truth only when you open your heart to the light that is all things." crapola, to more formally structured arguments involving philosopher name dropping, and: "that depends on what the meaning of the word "is," is." type of thing.

What is knowledge that is not testable, not measurable against anything, not reproducible, not able to be objectively confirmed, and not demonstratable to others? It is simply NOT knowledge. How can theists justify using that word when speaking of metaphysical or spiritual subject matter?

I might have a bit more respect for theism if theists would just call a spade, a spade. Theist says to me: I have knowledge that God exists. I know he exists because: I have experienced him, personally. He has shown himself to me, personally. His existence is self-evident to ME. How can the theist think he has obtained actual knowledge regarding God's existence if the only way he can pass it on is to just TELL people, "it's true, because I have experienced it, and I have decided that it is true, and I am telling you that it is." How can he regard his believe as anything but individual testimonial?

If a paranoid schizophrenic has delusions and auditory hallucinations of the devil speaking to him, would any reasonable person believe he has knowledge about the nature of Satan? Of course not. The schizophrenic's experience is real, and certainly powerful to him, but it is a subjective experience regardless.

I suspect theists paint god-belief as an intellectual subject rather than an experiential one because they think this will make it an easier pill for non-believers to swallow. It is as if they realize how irrational naked faith actually is, so they try to beef it up with philosophical rhetoric; try to make it appear grounded in reality when it's not. Maybe this makes it an easier pill for THEM to swallow.

Theists: Please remember to use the word "knowledge" only where it reasonably applies.

Here endeth my rant. Thanks for listening, and hopefully I didn't break any forum rules this time, and YES, I read them!

You don't decide to believe experience. If you stump your toe, you can decide that shit didn't happen, but it still did.

Knowledge via personal experience that was/is verifiable through the particulars of said scenario/s is still personal irrefutable knowledge that has been tested and/or verified by the individual.

It is not the same as scientific law, as it cannot be observed by a third party unless by the will of GOD. Apparently, generally speaking, God leaves the acquisition of utter truth to the individual. Otherwise it wouldn't be irrefutable to that individual.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

So if a paranoid schizo hears the devil, does he have real knowledge about the nature of the devil?

[Mystic]

There is possibility as in not maybe, but rather as in metaphysical possibility. A creator is a metaphysical possibility is for the sake of argument. In fact, we don't have to assume that this creator possible in any possible world as far rational goes. I'm simply starting with it to show that morality is eternal.

It's like if you talk about a variable in math. You let x be variable. X doesn't exist, but you let represent something to form the argument. This how the argument starts.

Do you then understand how I'm using the term to start off the argument?

[LadyForCamus]

As soon as anyone talks about "spiritual" things, in a non-metaphorical way, I literally have no idea what they are talking about. I've asked many times, but I've never received anything that sounds like a sensible answer to me.

How would you describe something that is without physical bounds or within complete human comprehension, in literal terms?

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

How can you be certain such things exist at all?

[Mystic]

Okay...first of all, I find it insulting that you made a false assumption regarding my world view a few posts above ( assuming that my atheism is about not wanting to believe in God), I corrected you, and you just continued on with that false assumption. I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you weren't intentionally straw manning me, and try it again. My atheism has nothing to do with stubbornness, willfulness, or "not wanting to budge," as you put it. I simply don't see any evidence for a creator God. If you can't accept my world view for what it is, then we can't move forward with a discussion.

So let's modify the argument so it's more clear.

Assume where it the case an eternal creator was possible (metaphysically possible).

If that assumed eternal creator can create goodness out of nothing, it can decide it's good to torture a being for ever with intense torture for no crime on it's own in some possible world.
It's impossible that assumed eternal creator can make goodness such that it's good to torture a being forever with intense torture for no crime on it's own in any possible world

You can't begin a debate about whether or not God exists with: "assume God can..." You aren't really debating his existence if your whole premise relies on him existing. You use the word "good" in a strange way. So God creates "good," but then tortures people and also calls that "good?" I am not following your logic.

Therefore it's necessarily the case that goodness cannot be created out nothing by any assumed creator in any possible world.

I honestly have no idea what any of that means, or how you would justify it as necessary.

Goodness exists and it's part of our reality/selves.

Science easily explains why humans are good to each other. Google is a wonderful tool.

If assumed creator cannot create goodness out of nothing, then neither can evolution, as it can create evolution.
Goodness therefore is eternal (not created)
Goodness only is possible if perceived.
Therefore an eternal perception of goodness existed.

Honestly, none of that even makes sense. Why you think humans being good to each other is some kind of mystical phenomenon is beyond me.

I don't understand your argument, or how you think it is based in logic and rationality. Not trying to be an ass, just saying...

[LadyForCamus]

There is possibility as in not maybe, but rather as in metaphysical possibility. A creator is a metaphysical possibility is for the sake of argument. In fact, we don't have to assume that this creator possible in any possible world as far rational goes. I'm simply starting with it to show that morality is eternal.

It's like if you talk about a variable in math. You let x be variable. X doesn't exist, but you let represent something to form the argument. This how the argument starts.

Do you then understand how I'm using the term to start off the argument?

Mystic,

I'm not trying to be an asshole, but could you please proof read your posts? I make my fair share of spelling and grammatical errors, but sometimes you are literally unintelligible.

[Mystic]

Ok I'm not going to quote cause I have hard time with that today.

You said how does it follow.

If a Creator can create morality/goodness out of nothing (a), then it can make it the case goodness/morality is such that it is good/moral to torture a innocent forever (b)
It cannot be that goodness/morality is such that it can be good/moral to torture an innocent being forever in any possible world (not b)
Therefore a Creator can't create goodness out nothing (not a)

There is a rule in logic.

A->B
Not B
Therefore Not A.

[Mystic]

Ok moving on.

If you accept that much, then the next premise is a Creator can hypothetically create evolution.
Therefore if a Creator can't create morality out of nothing, and it can create evolution
It follows evolution can't create morality either.

Tell me if you disagree or don't follow?

[LadyForCamus]

Ok I'm not going to quote cause I have hard time with that today.

You said how does it follow.

If a Creator can create morality/goodness out of nothing (a), then it can make it the case goodness/morality is such that it is good/moral to torture a innocent forever (b)
It cannot be that goodness/morality is such that it can be good/moral to torture an innocent being forever in any possible world (not b)
Therefore a Creator can't create goodness out nothing (not a)

There is a rule in logic.

A->B
Not B
Therefore Not A.

Right! But do you realize that you are just assuming A?! A is the topic of our debate!