[QUOTE=lekatt]
Then you are wrong also by reason of infallibility, your reasoning is circular in nature. Since I experienced first hand what I wrote about, it is only I that can say whether or not it was real,
[/quote]
Don’t you think someone who is hallucinating can say the very same thing you’ve just said, with just the same strength behind their claim?
-FrL-
[QUOTE=lekatt]
Then you are wrong also by reason of infallibility, your reasoning is circular in nature.
[/QUOTE]
There’s nothing circular about it - fallibile people can be wrong in their assessment of things - period. If it’s circular, where’s the loop back?
If you’re attempting to state that I could be wrong about the definition of fallible due to my being fallible - then you’re right. Until I check the dictionaries. They agree with me about the definition of fallibility. And then I ask a bunch of other people. They agree with me too. In fact, I’m able to get pretty much unanimous agreement - which is all that matters when you’re talking about finding the definition of a word.
Unanimous agreement isn’t all that matters when you’re talking about an actual experience, though. Objective reality matters too, and that’s difficult or impossible to check about a past event that occured only in your mind. Which means we may never really know.
[QUOTE=lekatt]
Since I experienced first hand what I wrote about, it is only I that can say whether or not it was real, and I say it was real. I have no doubt it was real. You not being there have no say only an opinion.
[/QUOTE]
Reality isn’t subject to your say-so, no matter how egotistical you may be.
And, sure, I only get to have an opinion. You being there, you only have an opinion too. Having been the one that had the experience merely means that you have the most complete set of details about it, not that you get to dictate what’s real and what’s not. Were you to describe your exeperience in perfect, accurate, complete detail to someone else, managing to convey the entirety of your experience, then they’d have the same right to make judgements about it as you do.
Me, I don’t know all the details of your experience, not even close, and I’ve forgotten some of the few details about it I’ve read. However, in my assessment there’s enough detail that I think you dozed off and dreamed it. That’s just my opinion however.
[QUOTE=Frylock]
Don’t you think someone who is hallucinating can say the very same thing you’ve just said, with just the same strength behind their claim?
-FrL-
[/QUOTE]
I wouldn’t be able to judge others’ experiences. I can’t read minds. Can you.
[QUOTE=begbert2]
There’s nothing circular about it - fallibile people can be wrong in their assessment of things - period. If it’s circular, where’s the loop back?
If you’re attempting to state that I could be wrong about the definition of fallible due to my being fallible - then you’re right. Until I check the dictionaries. They agree with me about the definition of fallibility. And then I ask a bunch of other people. They agree with me too. In fact, I’m able to get pretty much unanimous agreement - which is all that matters when you’re talking about finding the definition of a word.
Unanimous agreement isn’t all that matters when you’re talking about an actual experience, though. Objective reality matters too, and that’s difficult or impossible to check about a past event that occured only in your mind. Which means we may never really know.
Reality isn’t subject to your say-so, no matter how egotistical you may be.
And, sure, I only get to have an opinion. You being there, you only have an opinion too. Having been the one that had the experience merely means that you have the most complete set of details about it, not that you get to dictate what’s real and what’s not. Were you to describe your exeperience in perfect, accurate, complete detail to someone else, managing to convey the entirety of your experience, then they’d have the same right to make judgements about it as you do.
Me, I don’t know all the details of your experience, not even close, and I’ve forgotten some of the few details about it I’ve read. However, in my assessment there’s enough detail that I think you dozed off and dreamed it. That’s just my opinion however.
[/QUOTE]
What I experience is my reality, if it is not yours, it’s ok with me. Most of what you say is science doctrine, you will get over it in time.
I was in the presence of God, no doubt, I have had many spiritual experiences after that. I know what I experienced. That will never change.
[QUOTE=lekatt]
What I experience is my reality, if it is not yours, it’s ok with me. Most of what you say is science doctrine, you will get over it in time.
I was in the presence of God, no doubt, I have had many spiritual experiences after that. I know what I experienced. That will never change.
[/QUOTE]
Congratulations on your spectacularly large ego. I feel sorry for you for your inability to rationally assess your experiences, though. (Not that rationality is that big a benefit in life. Many people with very little get on swimmingly.)
And the only “doctrine” of science that I know of is “don’t assume you’re right”. Which to me reads as “don’t be a fool.” And yeah, I’ll probably get over it in time, perhaps through senility, and if not that then with death, but I sincerely hope that won’t happen any time soon.
[QUOTE=lekatt]
We were not discussing NDEs in general, we were discussing specific instances where the experiencer was in the presence of God. I posted the link to show numbers of experiences and nothing else. So you are wrong by being out of context.
[/quote]
[QUOTE=lekatt]
The quote below comes from an article and study of the International Association of Near Death Studies. You will not this quote is the bottom of the article which says four percent of people in the US have had this experience, that is 12 million. Now if you want to read the whole article and I hope you do, I have provided a link.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Your cite]
Prevalence of NDEs
I note that you have not attempted to defend the other two arguments I made against your citing.
Skepticism is cool? I was wondering about all those kids wandering the streets, quoting Hume and wearing RandiWear™, were up to.
More seriously, I admire your ability to explain the motivations of your opponents away as mere aspirations of coolness, or fear of truth, or a pretense. Out of interest - have you ever met or debated a person who disagreed with you who you thought did in fact have pure motivations, but who still disagreed? Someone who you think was genuinely a seeker of truth, but with a different stance to your own?
Extreme scepticism is certainly paranoia, and it probably does lead to a lot of unhappiness, I agree. In fact, I agree to most of what you’ve put here, other than the degree to which you believe your state of mind affects your situation.
I would only point out to you that your last sentence requires you to agree to all beliefs, all religions, all deities. You are required to agree with me now, in fact; as well as keep your own opinion. You may not at any time call me wrong, even should I be. Positive is better than negative anytime. It’s silly, isn’t it? But that’s what such a rule would mean for you.
You accept your current beliefs. You reject all other beliefs - actual or just theoretical - just as we all do. What you are positive to pales hugely in comparison to the literally infinite amounts of what you are negative to. And yet - I accept the possibility that you may, in fact, be right, and that many beliefs I don’t hold could be. You don’t. As a more positive person than you, then, I look forward to the benefits that your belief system provides me; by your own admission, I am more happy that you can possibly be.
[QUOTE=begbert2]
Congratulations on your spectacularly large ego. I feel sorry for you for your inability to rationally assess your experiences, though. (Not that rationality is that big a benefit in life. Many people with very little get on swimmingly.)
And the only “doctrine” of science that I know of is “don’t assume you’re right”. Which to me reads as “don’t be a fool.” And yeah, I’ll probably get over it in time, perhaps through senility, and if not that then with death, but I sincerely hope that won’t happen any time soon.
[/QUOTE]
So you say you can assess the reality of my experiences and I can’t, then you say I have a large ego. Time for a reality check.
and…“don’t assume you’re right,” is good, try to follow it.
[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
You claim the numbers were about experiences when in the prescence of God. Yet, your own cite claims those numbers as being ones which match their definition of NDEs, which neither matches your definition of NDEs or your definition of being in the prescence of God. Were I wrong and out of context (which I am not), you would still have the problem that you’re citing your quotes from a site which disagrees with you about the very nature of your experience. IOW, you’re claiming that a site which disagrees with you fundamentally has accurate numbers for something they have not claimed to measure.
I note that you have not attempted to defend the other two arguments I made against your citing. Skepticism is cool? I was wondering about all those kids wandering the streets, quoting Hume and wearing RandiWear™, were up to.
More seriously, I admire your ability to explain the motivations of your opponents away as mere aspirations of coolness, or fear of truth, or a pretense. Out of interest - have you ever met or debated a person who disagreed with you who you thought did in fact have pure motivations, but who still disagreed? Someone who you think was genuinely a seeker of truth, but with a different stance to your own? Extreme scepticism is certainly paranoia, and it probably does lead to a lot of unhappiness, I agree. In fact, I agree to most of what you’ve put here, other than the degree to which you believe your state of mind affects your situation.
I would only point out to you that your last sentence requires you to agree to all beliefs, all religions, all deities. You are required to agree with me now, in fact; as well as keep your own opinion. You may not at any time call me wrong, even should I be. Positive is better than negative anytime. It’s silly, isn’t it? But that’s what such a rule would mean for you.
You accept your current beliefs. You reject all other beliefs - actual or just theoretical - just as we all do. What you are positive to pales hugely in comparison to the literally infinite amounts of what you are negative to. And yet - I accept the possibility that you may, in fact, be right, and that many beliefs I don’t hold could be. You don’t. As a more positive person than you, then, I look forward to the benefits that your belief system provides me; by your own admission, I am more happy that you can possibly be.
[/QUOTE]
I will agree with you if it pleases you, but I am not required to do so. No one said I was perfect, I follow a path proven to be the best possible, but not perfectly. As for happiness and who is more, well, that’s subjective also. Many times we agree on things yet argue about them not knowing we agree.
Life is tricky, you must learn to bob and weave among the pitches, dodging the bad ones and knocking the good ones out of the park.
But mostly I don’t understand anything you said as applying to me.
[QUOTE=lekatt]
I wouldn’t be able to judge others’ experiences. I can’t read minds. Can you.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t have to be able to read someone’s mind in order to judge that they are hallucinating. I don’t need to know anything about his mind other than what he himself is willing to tell me.
If someone tells me there’s an enormous elephant standing right next to me in the same room I am in, and if I am in a very small room and (needless to say) I don’t see an elephant anywhere in the room, then I judge that he’s hallucinating. I haven’t tried to read his mind–all I’ve done is listen to him and what he tells me about what he sees. He (thinks he) sees an elephant. There’s no elephant there. So he’s hallucinating.
This is to “judge his experience” in the sense that it is to judge that his experience is not veridical–does not draw an accurate picture of the world. But that has nothing to do with mindreading.
Now you said that only you can judge whether your experience is veridical or not. I also take it that if you were in a small room in which you see no elephant, and I told you there is an elephant in the room with you, you would not agree that there is an elephant there. Your own experience would tell you that there is no elephant there. Do you not think that by making this judgment–by judging, in accordance with your own experience, that there is no elephant there–you thereby judge my experience? After all, my experience tells me there’s an elephant there, and you judge there is no elephant there. How is your judgment not a judgment of my experience in such a case?
-FrL-
[QUOTE=Frylock]
I don’t have to be able to read someone’s mind in order to judge that they are hallucinating. I don’t need to know anything about his mind other than what he himself is willing to tell me.
If someone tells me there’s an enormous elephant standing right next to me in the same room I am in, and if I am in a very small room and (needless to say) I don’t see an elephant anywhere in the room, then I judge that he’s hallucinating. I haven’t tried to read his mind–all I’ve done is listen to him and what he tells me about what he sees. He (thinks he) sees an elephant. There’s no elephant there. So he’s hallucinating.
This is to “judge his experience” in the sense that it is to judge that his experience is not veridical–does not draw an accurate picture of the world. But that has nothing to do with mindreading.
Now you said that only you can judge whether your experience is veridical or not. I also take it that if you were in a small room in which you see no elephant, and I told you there is an elephant in the room with you, you would not agree that there is an elephant there. Your own experience would tell you that there is no elephant there. Do you not think that by making this judgment–by judging, in accordance with your own experience, that there is no elephant there–you thereby judge my experience? After all, my experience tells me there’s an elephant there, and you judge there is no elephant there. How is your judgment not a judgment of my experience in such a case?
-FrL-
[/QUOTE]
You speak of veridical, do you not know there are thousands of veridical spiritual experiences in print, and even scientific studies showing they are real spiritual experiences. By the way, I mentioned nothing about an elephant.
[QUOTE=lekatt]
I will agree with you if it pleases you, but I am not required to do so. No one said I was perfect, I follow a path proven to be the best possible, but not perfectly. As for happiness and who is more, well, that’s subjective also. Many times we agree on things yet argue about them not knowing we agree.
Life is tricky, you must learn to bob and weave among the pitches, dodging the bad ones and knocking the good ones out of the park.
But mostly I don’t understand anything you said as applying to me.
[/QUOTE]
I note that again you have avoided defending yourself against my prior arguments.
My point just then was solely this; according to your own belief system, I am entirely more happy than you. I’m not entirely sure how you can say that your own belief system doesn’t apply to you, unless you’re a randomist of impressive credentials. But here’s the thing; i’m not only happier, I follow your path better than you do, apparently. That’s what your belief system says. So when you accuse me of paranoia, and warn me that it leads to an unhappy path, and tell me that positive is better than negative anytime, it’s somewhat redundant. According to your beliefs, I know these things already, and am avoiding them to a superior extent to yourself.
I don’t really think I am further along your path than you are. But that’s what your beliefs say. You certainly duck and weave, but I would have thought, given your impassioned defence of your ideals, that you would not be willing to fritter them away when called on them, only to collect them up and start again the next time around. Really, I would expect you to be a bit more, well, dedicated.
[QUOTE=lekatt]
You speak of veridical, do you not know there are thousands of veridical spiritual experiences in print, and even scientific studies showing they are real spiritual experiences. By the way, I mentioned nothing about an elephant.
[/QUOTE]
And I mentioned nothing about spiritual experiences.
Lekatt, intellectual dishonesty is a sin.
-FrL-
[QUOTE=Frylock]
And I mentioned nothing about spiritual experiences.
Lekatt, intellectual dishonesty is a sin.
-FrL-
[/QUOTE]
Hmmm…I guess we don’t know what we are talking about.
[QUOTE=lekatt]
Time for a reality check.
[/QUOTE]
does not compute
does not compute
dose not compute
dose ot copmuut
ddddddooooossss ntttttooo commmmmmmmmmmm…BZZZT!
OUT OF ORDER
[QUOTE=lekatt]
So you say you can assess the reality of my experiences and I can’t, then you say I have a large ego. Time for a reality check.
[/QUOTE]
And when one checks the reality, they find that what I actually said is that I can assess the reality of your experiences, and so can you. Neither one of us can dictate reality, but we both can assess it. That’s the reality. Not that you’re one to let reality interfere with your opinions on things.
I’m getting tired of this hijack. So, free will in heaven! I’m thinking no, by any meaningful definition of free will. Anybody else?
I agree that, as presented, there can be no free will in a situation where your mind “fixed” so that everything in Heaven pleases you. “You can choose to defy God any time you want-but you just won’t want to” is just double-talk.
[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
I note that again you have avoided defending yourself against my prior arguments.
My point just then was solely this; according to your own belief system, I am entirely more happy than you. I’m not entirely sure how you can say that your own belief system doesn’t apply to you, unless you’re a randomist of impressive credentials. But here’s the thing; i’m not only happier, I follow your path better than you do, apparently. That’s what your belief system says. So when you accuse me of paranoia, and warn me that it leads to an unhappy path, and tell me that positive is better than negative anytime, it’s somewhat redundant. According to your beliefs, I know these things already, and am avoiding them to a superior extent to yourself.
I don’t really think I am further along your path than you are. But that’s what your beliefs say. You certainly duck and weave, but I would have thought, given your impassioned defence of your ideals, that you would not be willing to fritter them away when called on them, only to collect them up and start again the next time around. Really, I would expect you to be a bit more, well, dedicated.
[/QUOTE]
I am sorry, but I couldn’t follow what you are saying, seems to be redundant and conflicting. But it wouldn’t bother me if you are better at following the path of love and I. I would commend you for it.
[QUOTE=Czarcasm]
I agree that, as presented, there can be no free will in a situation where your mind “fixed” so that everything in Heaven pleases you. “You can choose to defy God any time you want-but you just won’t want to” is just double-talk.
[/QUOTE]
No one’s mind is fixed in the spirit world any more than here. Free will is always with us in all dimensions. The spirit world is somewhat like the physical without the dishonesty. You can’t fool anyone as to your motives there.
[QUOTE=Czarcasm]
I agree that, as presented, there can be no free will in a situation where your mind “fixed” so that everything in Heaven pleases you. “You can choose to defy God any time you want-but you just won’t want to” is just double-talk.
[/QUOTE]
Why do you say that is double-talk?
You can choose to go on a murderous genocidal rampage any time you want. But you won’t want to.
That’s not double-talk, it’s just a statement of fact.
-FrL-
[QUOTE=Frylock]
Why do you say that is double-talk?
You can choose to go on a murderous genocidal rampage any time you want. But you won’t want to.
That’s not double-talk, it’s just a statement of fact.
-FrL-
[/QUOTE]
I think the double-talk is calling it free will. I mean, there will presumably be at least dozens of people in heaven, with an infinite amount of time to spend there. You’d think that in all that time, eventually, somebody would get the inclination to put a toe outside the line. Unless they weren’t able to get such inclinations.