So… if measuring systems don’t exist, 75°F doesn’t exist…
What am I feeling, again?
That sounds reasonable, given that I was actually born. I have seen humans born, so perhaps I can infer that I, too, was born, even if I have no memory of it. Perhaps I can even infer that my senses were operating at that time.
So therefore I can lay some claim to events and things that I have no memory of actually ever sensing, providing that someone I trust sensed it, and they were like me. Very well: Malaclypse the Younger talked with Eris; I trust Malaclypse; therefore, Eris exists. Or at least Her voice does.
No?
Unless, of course, one simply defines things as imperceivable, like in…
Well, that about wraps it up for god! Next debate.
Blue, as humans see it, is a particular wavelength of light reflected off of a surface. You know it exists, don’t you? But do you know how it is percieved from you? Why that particular wavelength looks “blue”? It’s in your mind, isn’t it? But it’s not imagined, because most peopel agree that “blue” exists, right?
Not having concrete evidence of something != something not existing.
Unfortunately, a messageboard does not lend itself to such empirical claims. I cannot perceive 75°F (of heat, but you’ll excuse me if I think that’s implied in the statement). I can perceive heat, and I can read a thermometer, and I can link them together. While I am sure most people would accept that claim, they should also accept that I am not perceiving 75°. So I still don’t know what to make of the claim. Am I to understand that in absence of a measuring device (do such devices exist if measurment doesn’t exist?) you can still tell me it is 75°F outside? Of course I think it is in the 50’s or 60’s here, but the point should still stand, I presume.
Do words exist? If I am moved by your argument, is it a figment of my imagination that is doing so? After all, I’m not really perceiving you. You mightn’t even exist: I’m only seeing words on my screen that I’m attributing to what I presume is a poster who goes by the handle of ExecutiveJesus.
In that case, then, I shall say: I am not really perceiving Eris, I’m perceiving chaotic events and attributing it to Eris.
Spiritual experiences cannot be described, quantified or externally observed from a scientific perspective. For those who have experienced them, however, they are undeniable.
This is the whole point, folks. The forces at work in a spiritual situation exist entirely outside the realm of science, which a non-spiritually minded person interprets to mean they don’t exist. You may not ever have such an experience. If you ever do, you will understand that there is more going on that what science can observe and label.
I’m just going to say what you’ve been trying to get someone to say all along: From a scientific perspective, the spiritual things we are talking about don’t exist. We are not stupid, we are aware of this. We just happen to know that we’ve been in contact with something higher, it’s not the kind of thing that you get over that easily. That it can’t be proven by someone else’s standards is hardly relevant to someone who has had the experience.
That smacks of the “No True Scotsman” fallacy. You are basically saying that those who don’t believe that “spiritual” experiences are valid must never had have such an experience. In fact, it is quite reasonable to suspect that someone can have the exact same experience that you have, yet interpret it in a non-spiritual way.
Don’t make me start beating people with my bagpipes!
There are two separate things, in my view, that people lump into “spiritual experiences”. They are, an experience itself, and the subsequent narratives (both internal and vocalized) used to fumble at describing them.
I’d fumble at describing my own brushes with spiritual experiences–so-called, if you prefer–as a simultaneously humbling and uplifting, peaceful but intense emotional affect; an intense sensation of propinquity and immanence and of meaning. Funky things (that’s a technical term!) happen to the usual sense of ego and identity during them.
I’m more or less convinced that’s about as well as I can describe the notable experiences in general terms; I’m extremely hesitant about ascribing particular formultations of dogma as further layers of explanation–but some do strike me as useful ways of mapping it in some circumstances. On the other hand, I’d also accept that it’s all due to (apparently) non-harmful mild seizures across bits of my brain. In either case, the explanation of the experienced event is separate from the event itself.
A: “A Scotsman would never put honey on his porridge!”
B: “But look at my uncle William MacDonald! He’s Scottish and he also puts honey on his porridge every morning.”
A: “Well then, your uncle William is not a true Scotsman. My argument still stands.”
Letter A has committed the “No True Scotsman” fallacy. The argument can also be seen in the following, all too often seen, exchange.
A: “Communism is a wonderful system of government that ensures perfect equality for all.”
B: “But what about the Communist governments of the Soviets and the Chinese? Surely these governments were quite the oppressors.”
A: “They weren’t really Communist though. They just said they were. True Communism has never been practiced.”
Lucki Chaarms is correct in everything said. If one has a spiritual experience it is known as a spiritual experience. As was said, we are not stupid. There are many things beyond science’s ability to comprehend. This is one of them.
Interesting. Alas, David Hume is dead, but I’d be interested to hear your comments on his piece anyway. Don’t worry, I won’t claim I can speak to his soul for you, that’s crazy.
Hume tried really hard to find evidence in his senses of cause and effect. Yet, apparently, like 75°F, cause and effect is another fancy of the imagination.
But you want us to consider logic. Very well. I shall leave the befuddling notion of cause and effect, and temperature, behind for now and focus on implication, the truth table of which is as follows:
A B||A->B
---||----
T T|| T
T F|| F
F T|| T
F F|| T
Now, here is what perplexes me. Suppose I have the premise A that “Eris exists”, the premise B that “I can sense Eris.” Does A imply B?
Hmm. Seems that even if Eris doesn’t exist, the implication is true whether or not I can sense Her. But I can sense Her. So either Eris’s existence and my sense of Her implies the truth, or Eris’s nonexistence and my sense of Her implies the truth.
Sticky situation! Perhaps I am not really sensing Eris, then, but mistaking my sensation of, say, an aspirin commercial with the Goddess speaking to me. In this case, we will change A to be, “Aspirin commercials exist.”
But, hmm. Seems that I’m sensing Eris whether or not aspirin commercials exist. This really isn’t going anywhere, is it? Let’s try it another way. Let’s let A be that Eris exists, and B be that I am watching an aspirin commercial.
But it seems I’m right back where I started. In fact, it seems like the implication could be true no matter what I put in there, even if I said, “Aspirin commercials exist implies I’m watching one.” Or the more profane, “I’m watching an aspirin commercial implies aspirin commercials exist.”
But that sounds natural, doesn’t it? Very well then. “That I am sensing Eris implies that Eris exists.” There. That should be better.
After all, the reasoning worked for aspirin commercials, did it not? This logic stuff is fun! Is there a logic sense, too? Is that how we know this stuff? Don’t tell me it is just a figment or I’ll lose all faith in aspirin commercials’ existence being implied by my watching of them, and even Eris can’t bring me back from that kind of skepticism (all hail)!
Maybe if we figured out how to sense causality we could get through this… but then, that’d require a logic sense, wouldn’t it? Oh, I hope I have it! I wouldn’t want to think I couldn’t infer my own birth…
