-->
@Outplayz
Testability means repeatability. A person's experiences cannot be repeated and so are untestable. You make my point for me.
There are no good arguments for atheism
Posts
Total:
178
-->
@secularmerlin
Yes i did. So, we don't have a means to test for it with are methods. Now what? Bc there is a now what. It is similar to saying i saw an eagle kill a rabbit a year ago. How do you test for that? If your only answer is your memory is unreliable... well, with this example i hope you can see how ridiculous that sounds.Testability means repeatability. A person's experiences cannot be repeated and so are untestable. You make my point for me.
-->
@Outplayz
The problem with your analogy is that eagles observably kill rabbits while your personal "supernatural" (or merely unexplainable as the case may be) experiences are not observable to me. One is observable to us both and one is not. They are therefore in a different category from one another and not directly comparable. We have shared experience of physical organisms engaging in predatory behaviors. We do not have shared experience of the supernatural whatever supernatural even means.
-->
@secularmerlin
I know. I purposefully said similar instead of like. The point of the analogy is about saying memory is unreliable to such a large degree of people that have witnessed something is not a very good reason to say they are all mistaken. I'm sure if i witnessed an eagle kill a rabbit, my memory is good. Just as i am sure i have seen phenomena that was not explainable... and this would apply to most people that have witnessed such things. Faulty memory would be an error of a few not all, or in my opinion, not most either. Delusion and mistakes... sure, that can be a factor too. But like i said, only one needs to be true for the implications to be huge.
-->
@Outplayz
i am sure i have seen phenomena that was not explainable.
If it is unexplainable then you cannot be certain of its nature. If you cannot be certain of its nature then saying the experience was supernatural is an argumentbfrom ignorance. Again you make my point for me.
-->
@secularmerlin
Did i say supernatural? A spiritual platform would be natural if it exists. All i said is that it points to a spiritual platform. I define that buy phenomena that is unexplained and seems to exhibit intelligence. In no way do i think it's supernatural, but then again it comes down to how you define supernatural. If saying something that can manipulate our laws (but still has to play by them) is supernatural, then i would say okay. But i'm not under the impression that's how it's strictly defined. By the strict definition i don't agree it's supernatural bc i do believe our science one day can understand it or at the very least it's possible. And i voiced that in my previous writings. You're grabbing at straws man.
-->
@Outplayz
You are welcome to replace the word supernatural in my previous post with the word spiritual. It does not change or even effect my argument.
-->
@secularmerlin
God i wanted to avoid this bc i don't like throwing out fallacy this or that bc it's petty... but, I'm making an arg from ignorance fallacy? You're backpedaling man. You are the one making this argument fallacy. You have no clue what i've witnessed nor everyone else has witnessed yet you are saying i'm wrong, or they're wrong, to categorize it how we've witnessed it? Really... the irony. And as to me, how am i making any fallacy when i haven't even asserted absolute knowledge? I said it's spiritual... i.e. unexplained phenomena that "seemed" to exhibit intelligence. Bc that is exactly how i witnessed it. I don't say it's god, ghosts, aliens, angles, demons, a part of the human mind we're not aware of, etc... it could be any one.
-->
@Outplayz
It seems odd to me that you both claim that you don't know what the phenomena was and also that it was spiritual. If you don't know what it was how can you know that it was spiritual? In any case humanity has a long history of ascribing a spiritual or supernatural cause to an unexplained phenomena only to find that the explanation, when discovered, was neither spiritual nor supernatural. I apologize I know you did not use the word supernatural it's just that both terms are not well defined and I'm not precisely sure what the difference even is.
In any case if claiming a spiritual agency is the cause of a phenomena that you have already admitted is unexplainable isn't an argument from ignorance then I'm not sure what would qualify.
-->
@secularmerlin
It would qualify if i didn't briefly define what i meant by spiritual in this context. I think you are going off your own preconceived definition of spiritual as stuff like gods, supernatural, ghosts or something. That isn't how i define the word all the time. I think if someone says they witnessed something spiritual it usually means that they witnessed something unexplained that seemed to exhibit intelligence. That is the definition i think could cover most instances of when someone says they witnessed a spiritual event. People that say they've witnessed aliens, ghosts, god, gods, etc... are the ones engaging in a fallacy bc they are doing as you said... giving an absolute to something unexplained. But the way i define it not only covers all of the above, but it also allows for uncertainty in what actually happened. I feel that is the most honest way to define the word. Remember, i'm very far off from being one of those people. I feel you keep mistaking me as one bc i ultimately have a belief (suspect) in a higher intelligence.
Now, i make educated guesses to what spiritual platforms can answer these experiences (which spiritual platform would allow for these things). I acknowledge i am making a leap when i do that and that i can be wrong. I also expand on the definition here a little bc spiritual platforms can mean god / gods. A god would be something unexplained that exhibits intelligence. In the end of the day, I have come to a conclusion that suspecting a spiritual platform is logical, which i further would say and start describing a non-dual type entity the best fits. But that's way down the lines of what i am talking about. All am saying is these experiences are just one of a couple other reasons i find suspecting such a thing is logical. It's not the iron clad proof nor is it my only reason. But i am very confident people experience spiritual phenomena... make what you will of it, it happens. I think being curious to what the implications are at this point is justified. I've chosen a platform that is pantheistic in nature, but i don't fault someone that stays skeptical. All i can do is explain myself, and in that explaining i'm saying i've considered unreliable memories, i just don't find them convincing enough to toss the idea of spiritual experiences aside.
-->
@Outplayz
How have you determined the intelligence behind an unexplainable event?
-->
@secularmerlin
Of off my own experiences and experiences i've heard from other people. Let's take a ghost hunters experience. When you ask something that's not there to knock once for yes and two for no... and this happens consistently for a good 30 minutes of asking questions, one could say the knocking is by something that can answer questions or intelligent. I use this example bc it's also very likely that the sounds are just coincidental noise (in most cases i think that's the cause). But the thing is, if it isn't, then it would be something intelligent bc it follows commands. Then there are more elaborate experiences where the chance of coincidental happening is much lower. But most experience, not all, follow this point... if they are truly happening in a spiritual sense they exhibit intelligence to some level.
There was an experience some guy told me where he heard a voice say to him "Sorry, this guy (i forget his name but it said it) was going to be really good friends with you but he just died in an accident). He went to work and a random coworker that he didn't really even know yet but thought would be a cool person had just died in a car accident. These experiences are tricky bc it can be just something we don't know about the mind... but i would say only something intelligent can tell him that... even if the source was himself. These are the experiences i find most curious bc it's also like mine and i've heard many, well not many, but a handful of people that had experiences it was something like that. Another was a girl approached a guy i knew and told him to tell his mom not to go on vacation. He didn't think anything of it and thought she's delusional... the mom went on vacation and got hit by a drunk driver. That can also be very random chance, but if something gave that girl the feeling to say that to him... i would imagine it was intelligent, and a higher intelligence to boot. Which is why i've also started suspecting higher intelligences.
-->
@Outplayz
I found when I was a believer that if I had an experience or feeling that seemed presentient that if it turned out to be correct I took it as evidence and if it was not correct I tended to dismiss it as unimportant.
-->
@secularmerlin
Yeah, well it's really hard to just toss it when everything screams it was correct. But i'm aware enough to know there are natural explanations, even if those explanations in my opinion are more far fetched, there still there. So i'm sure even if you experienced something, you can find a natural explanation to answer it. That's the war that will go on in your head. Of course, unless you are like the gullible and just subscribe whatever god you were born into to the event (people i think muddy the water in these things). I don't think your like them however but i also don't think you're like me in that you would probably just write it off.
-->
@Outplayz
I am merely unable to accept any untestable claim.
-->
@secularmerlin
But there are limitations to our current understanding / methods... and does your skepticism only apply to spiritual matters or everything... for instance, we can't test for if we are dual beings and everything seems non-dual... So, do you believe in non-duality as a default until we can test otherwise? Or do you stay skeptical of dark energy or matter until we can test for it?
-->
@Outplayz
The answer is that until we can test a hypothesis we should remain skeptical of it. Dark matter is just a placeholder for whatever is adding extra apparent gravitation to the universe. The effects of the gravity have been observed the cause has not. If dark matter is whatever force or object is responsible for the extra gravitation then it seems to exist but we don't really know what it is. As for duality it depends on what sense you mean that in.
-->
@secularmerlin
By duality i mean is that everything is made of atoms, everything is made of the same material. If you looked at the universe under a microscope, everything would appear as one.
Nevertheless, i agree with you that you should be skeptical of claims. But you don't understand a few things when it comes to me personally with spirituality. One is that i know we don't have a way to test it. We aren't even trying. So the only person at this point that can try is me. Therefore, i am personally testing it. I usually only share 3 of my experiences, but those aren't the only experiences i've had. There are one/two specific other experiences i've had that i can personally test (more so one of them). For if they are as they are... then they should continue to happen in my life. So far... they've happened every single time as predicted. It's still ongoing, bc there are still events that should trigger these experiences. But so far they've happened every time has they should. So... being skeptical for me is a lot harder. It's basically like dark matter for me at this point. I am beginning to know something is there, and using as much logic and reasoning i can to pin point what could be the cause.
-->
@Outplayz
I have no way of testing your experiences. It does not matter if you have had one spiritual experience or three or three million. They are not useful to our discussion as they are not a part of our shared reality. I do not expect you to take my word for any of my claims which is part of the reason I sincerely try to make as few possitive claims as possible and often qualify them. I also often provide a link or citation.
-->
@Outplayz
By duality i mean is that everything is made of atoms, everything is made of the same material. If you looked at the universe under a microscope, everything would appear as one.
I'm not certain this is the case. The truth is that so far as we view things that are smaller and smaller things that appear to be one are truly many. Perhaps this will change one day but to my knowledge to date it has not.
-->
@secularmerlin
I'm not certain this is the case. The truth is that so far as we view things that are smaller and smaller things that appear to be one are truly many. Perhaps this will change one day but to my knowledge to date it has not.
Huh? I take it you've never researched microscopy? what you said is just the opposite. The outer first layers appear to be many and separate, as you focus closer and closer in everything becomes larger and eventually joins itself and is interconnected to where you have basically a static image where at one level it seemed to have contrast and of course it does at the surface level, this is a state of frequency which has stabilized itself to maintain structure but it is still connected to the base level of everything, like all levels touching hands as they manifest outward. This is that layer of static awareness that everything is formed. In order for there to be form/forms....."The Law of Correspondence holds the Oneness together, like the cosmic glue that connects everything to everything else. In “The Origin Speaks,” Needler explained a few things:
- Energy in its purest sense is formless or particle-less beingness or an unseen force. When energy is given form, it needs to be stabilized by frequencies; otherwise it is free-form.
- The human form is interwoven into the fabric of the physical universe, because it is made from the same energetic components at ten frequency bands (gross physical FB 1-3, astral FB 4-7, and purely energetic FB 8-10). It is designed to fully experience its environment."...
So as you begin to have this stabilization is where you begin to see separation and contrast, but it all springs forth from a unified base, which can be labeled pure energy, or even deeper pure awareness which has no form.
-->
@secularmerlin
I have no way of testing your experiences. It does not matter if you have had one spiritual experience or three or three million. They are not useful to our discussion as they are not a part of our shared reality. I do not expect you to take my word for any of my claims which is part of the reason I sincerely try to make as few possitive claims as possible and often qualify them. I also often provide a link or citation.
I know i didn't tell you that with the intention that you would believe me or that it is evidence for you. I very well know it isn't. I just wanted to tell you where i'm personally coming from. I wish there was a way to test it for everyone bc i do think having a positive spiritual belief could be a good thing. However, the more i understand, the more i realize most humans aren't capable of handling such truths yet... so in that sense, it also makes sense to me why it should be elusive.
I'm not certain this is the case. The truth is that so far as we view things that are smaller and smaller things that appear to be one are truly many. Perhaps this will change one day but to my knowledge to date it has not.
Huh... Are you talking about the different electrons, protons, etc. that are in atoms (which we've never seen, but other methods i would say are good enough to detect them so i won't argue against it)? Bc the only difference from one thing to another is how many they have in them. Other than that, everything is made of the same thing. Of course it is, or else we wouldn't be here, for star dust would have never been able to create worlds if we aren't all one thing. Etrnl broke it down a little more, but truly i don't see any reason to believe we are dual beings other than perceptions.
-->
@EtrnlVw
Our most powerful electron microscope do not detect objects smaller than a particle do they? I would be happy to learn more if this is not the case otherwise I am pretty sure what you are describing is purely hypothetical and only described mathematically. As for this formless awareness of which you speak I don't think we can detect it and so I'm not sure it exists.So as you begin to have this stabilization is where you begin to see separation and contrast, but it all springs forth from a unified base, which can be labeled pure energy, or even deeper pure awareness which has no form.
-->
@Outplayz
Are you certain that the problem isn't that most humans aren't capable of demonstrating such truths?most humans aren't capable of handling such truths
-->
@secularmerlin
I don't think demonstrating is the problem... the problem is no human can prove it. But even there, i'm not sure. Maybe there is someone out there that can. I have no way to know since we don't know what everyone is capable of. I can make a conclusion that no human can prove it only from the knowledge i have which is i can't produce any of my experiences. But i don't know if that is the case for everyone. Maybe someone can but for certain reasons, like not wanting the attention or not giving away their ability if it's making them rich, won't come forward. The percentage of people that can is probably astronomically small... and having this person be someone that craves attention and fame is probably even smaller. Understanding that all i can say is that i can't produce proof therefore i don't think anyone can... but, obviously also realize that is a bad generalization. With that i'm left with i don't know/who knows.Are you certain that the problem isn't that most humans aren't capable of demonstrating such truths?
But i also realized your question could mean most humans aren't wise enough to be able to demonstrate these truths... in that i agree. Most people are too ignorant and brainwashed to be able to objectively demonstrate what even their own spiritual experiences could mean. They will just assert whatever religion/belief they were born in. Most humans don't have spiritual intelligence and even if they do... they aren't aware enough to think beyond what they are taught. To get to where i am spiritually, one has to put themselves in many uncomfortable positions of being wrong. I'm not trying to brag and say that humbly, but i've noticed a lot of people can't do that.
-->
@Outplayz
I do not claim to kniw the answers I am simply unable to accept any explanation sans sufficient evidence.
-->
@secularmerlin
I do not claim to kniw the answers I am simply unable to accept any explanation sans sufficient evidence.
I think the difference here is that i define sufficient evidence differently. I think there is sufficient evidence to at the very least suspect spirituality. But then again, i don't know how that would look if i didn't personally experience it... i may not call it sufficient evidence anymore. But i don't know since that isn't the case.
-->
@Outplayz
When I was a believer I had many experiences that I thought were spiritual. What they really were is unexplainable at best and mundane at worst. (Best and worst in this context being based subjectively on the explanatory power of the event in relation to it being a "spiritual" event.) I have since come to the understanding that spiritual is an ill defined term and that many theists will describe very different events and group them all under the umbrella terms spiritual or religious claiming that the overwhelming number of spiritual experiences therefore counts as sufficient evidence when in fact the events do not share enough in common to be conclusively attributed to the same source at all.
-->
@secularmerlin
I told you how i define spiritual. Some kind of platform that is unknown to us that exhibits some kind of intelligence is a part of it. This can include many of the religions and philosophies. When i say suspect this platform i mean it by my definition which leaves it still open to speculation in what it could be. I don't think any spiritual experience ever reported gives us evidence towards any one platform. It's still a mystery which platform could be the case. However, i think through some observation and logic you can check some platforms off as less likely than others. Bringing you to some most likely platforms... but i no way do i think there is just one. There are a couple, but coincidentally at least for me, the platforms i have found to be more likely have the same implications. But point is... i think it is false to say these experiences are proof or even weak evidence towards any one platform.
And, if you've had experiences... i think you would know which ones are more compelling. If you've had experiences that truly make you scratch your head... then, you would see what i mean by it counting as evidence. I don't know your experiences... but there are many experiences that can be explained more logically by what we know like confirmation bias, etc. But, the experiences that can't be explained as easily by what we know will be the eye openers. You will see that giving the natural explanation seems more far fetched. I would say that is a strong experience. You should look at them in that sense... weak experience up to strong experiences. For instance "god" talking to you to say come to faith is a very weak experience. Hearing a voice telling you to make a left bc turning right would have killed you... is a medium experience. Having reoccurring dreams of an accident if traveled your normal way home, hearing a voice say go the shortcut on the day, and avoiding the exact same scene you saw in your dream... that would be a strong experience.
-->
@Outplayz
A dream is a personal experience. It cannot be more than anecdotal and is not a part of shared reality. I must disagree with you and call any evidence based on dreams weak evidence.