Moderator: Dan~
Ultimately this is true for all experiences and knowledge since these affect brain chemisty and we wake up alone in bed, trusting or not our memories of science or religion or whatever.tentative wrote:Felix,
There really is a dividing line between belief and repeatable knowing. Mystical experiences are always anectdotal and no matter how similar we think our "mystical" experiences are, they can never be the same -ie- you cannot show me how to replicate your experience. So the skepticism remains. Did you experience a god or was it simply the result of altered brain chemistry resulting from what you had for lunch? The same goes for my experiences. Have I seen truth or is it just another bout of illusion/delusion by a befuddled brain?
you seem sure that you and we cannot know. Perhaps you could be agnostic about that too.At the core of agnosticism is a healthy dose of skepticism which never goes away. Ultimately, one comes to the humiliating realization that I don't know and moreover, never will know. Such is the condition of our specie's sentience which leaves us with an insatiable desire to know what we can't know. The struggle is becoming comfortable with not knowing. I'm still working on that.
Karpel Tunnel wrote:Ultimately this is true for all experiences and knowledge since these affect brain chemisty and we wake up alone in bed, trusting or not our memories of science or religion or whatever.tentative wrote:Felix,
There really is a dividing line between belief and repeatable knowing. Mystical experiences are always anectdotal and no matter how similar we think our "mystical" experiences are, they can never be the same -ie- you cannot show me how to replicate your experience. So the skepticism remains. Did you experience a god or was it simply the result of altered brain chemistry resulting from what you had for lunch? The same goes for my experiences. Have I seen truth or is it just another bout of illusion/delusion by a befuddled brain?you seem sure that you and we cannot know. Perhaps you could be agnostic about that too.At the core of agnosticism is a healthy dose of skepticism which never goes away. Ultimately, one comes to the humiliating realization that I don't know and moreover, never will know. Such is the condition of our specie's sentience which leaves us with an insatiable desire to know what we can't know. The struggle is becoming comfortable with not knowing. I'm still working on that.
The debates are typically like this :It's the absence of the debate between Christians and others about the existence of God, that marks the difference.
Dan~ wrote:Will the real God please stand up.
I think god's responsibility is to represent himself instead of it being the job of humans.
So science could tell us what it is not all about?
Perhaps I'm missing something but to say what isn't requires saying what is.
If I know what is, then what isn't is self-defined.
What should we call this... thing we traditionally label "father in heaven" or "Lord God Almighty"?
Whether he, she, it, or any other label is simply language that makes discussion possible.
,The term ineffable comes to mind
but then this forum would disappear in a puff of... something.
This supposes that it is not magical if we know what is happening on some chemical, physical level. The old supernatural/natural binary thinking, which is not, certainly, what many pantheists/animists have asserted. That there are rules being broken or superceded all the time. That's more an Abrahamic dichotomy.Arcturus Descending wrote:Yes it can if we choose to see and to listen. Take the rainbow for instance. Science has an explanation for it; ergo we un-learn that it is not about ~ like some *magical* thing (though it seems to be in a sense) that happens, some superstitious thing which influences our fate.
Ierrellus wrote:The God experience is a realization of being at one with all that exists. That the experience is possible from taking certain drugs does not negate the possibility that the Kingdom is within and is available to anyone.
Karpel Tunnel wrote:This supposes that it is not magical if we know what is happening on some chemical, physical level. The old supernatural/natural binary thinking, which is not, certainly, what many pantheists/animists have asserted. That there are rules being broken or superceded all the time. That's more an Abrahamic dichotomy.Arcturus Descending wrote:Yes it can if we choose to see and to listen. Take the rainbow for instance. Science has an explanation for it; ergo we un-learn that it is not about ~ like some *magical* thing (though it seems to be in a sense) that happens, some superstitious thing which influences our fate.
Return to Religion and Spirituality
Users browsing this forum: No registered users