Testing Stuff

[_Buffalo]

Spiritual experiences don't overlap. They're all over the map.

Spiritual life is a personal journey left to individuals to verify for him/herself. My spiritual experiences overlap. I can't show them to others because they can't be shown by nature. I can't see others for the same reason. I'm conducting my own life long study on it. And as such we all come to different conclusions, well not all of course. This just shows that there are plenty of varied conclusions drawn from spiritual experience not that spiritual experience is non-existent.

If wholly in the realm in the subjective, then we're not talking about determining truth. We're talking about you finding what philosophy best works for you.

[_Morley]

Carbon dating comes out the same for everyone, every time.

So is the issue you're raising havin gto do with the tools of spiritual experience since their are varied conclusions as a result of spirit experience?

What?

[_Runtu]

Speak for yourself, no offense. I'm just saying, the exact opposite is true for me than for you apparently.

No offense taken. You've just restated my point: your spiritual experiences are yours alone, and they don't apply or transfer to anyone else. That's how the subjective works. I'm perfectly fine with you saying, "It works for me," but the subjective has always been problematic. If the subjective is a good method of determining truth, who are we to say that God didn't tell the Laffertys to do what they did? They will tell you that they have the truth. How would you go about telling them they were wrong?

[_Buffalo]

Except that we know where exactly the dating techniques overlap and what degree of accuracy we can count on. Not like spiritual experience at all, really.

Speak for yourself, no offense. I'm just saying, the exact opposite is true for me than for you apparently.

No offense, but it isn't

[_NorthboundZax]

Ack! Stem, you are really blowing through the power of science implying things like carbon-dating is just a fun tool that may or may not be correct. There are ways of verifying its validity. Take tree-rings, for instance. Tree rings are an independent way of dating. That the two converge says a lot for the veracity of carbon-dating.

Scottie's consecrated oil example is a good one, too. You brushed it off as if there was no way it could determine anything because of "other factors" possibly affecting the results. However, when it comes down to it, if consecrated oil has a claimed observable effect, it can be tested. If you really think "other factors" would swamp the observational improvement, you are in effect saying that consecrated oil has a weak effect at best on healing. Maybe, just maybe, that could provide some information on the power of God.

The way I read your approach in this thread is to play up uncertainty and then claim God could be in there. Even if we don't live in a completely certain world, there are a lot of things we can determine to a good degree - particularly about things that claim a particular result.

[_Morley]

Stem, if you perform carbon dating tests and I perform carbon dating tests, we will both receive the same results. If you pray for a testimony and I pray for a testimony, there is a good chance we will receive different result. The spiritual is not at all like the scientific.

[_stemelbow]

No offense taken. You've just restated my point: your spiritual experiences are yours alone, and they don't apply or transfer to anyone else. That's how the subjective works. I'm perfectly fine with you saying, "It works for me," but the subjective has always been problematic.

So from a believers perspective, how am I to understand the criticism seriously if the criticism does not and can not understand my own evaluation of spiritual experiences? it seems the only value then in the criticisms is to get me to question my own testing. It makes it appear that criticisms of my testing is about like those who criticize carbon dating as unreliable--they simply don't know.

If the subjective is a good method of determining truth, who are we to say that God didn't tell the Laffertys to do what they did? They will tell you that they have the truth. How would you go about telling them they were wrong?

Well, as I've said, of course there are different conclusions drawn in the realm of te spiritual. I didn't say its a foolproof method of determingin truth. There are other methods that need to be taken and weighed in the balance too.

[_stemelbow]

Ack! Stem, you are really blowing through the power of science implying things like carbon-dating is just a fun tool that may or may not be correct. There are ways of verifying its validity. Take tree-rings, for instance. Tree rings are an independent way of dating. That the two converge says a lot for the veracity of carbon-dating.

I didn't imply what you think I implied, in fact I explicitly stated the opposite of what you think I implied.

Scottie's consecrated oil example is a good one, too. You brushed it off as if there was no way it could determine anything because of "other factors" possibly affecting the results. However, when it comes down to it, if consecrated oil has a claimed observable effect, it can be tested. If you really think "other factors" would swamp the observational improvement, you are in effect saying that consecrated oil has a weak effect at best on healing. Maybe, just maybe, that could provide some information on the power of God.

For one, not all uses of oil in blessings results in healings and don't necessarily assume to. Also, the other factors do weigh heavily on the blessing. I just don't think it would work. But if he and you feel it would work as a good test, be my guest.

The way I read your approach in this thread is to play up uncertainty and then claim God could be in there. Even if we don't live in a completely certain world, there are a lot of things we can determine to a good degree - particularly about things that claim a particular result.

Its been pretty much for my benefit. I can't help it. People tell me I'm wrong and my spiritual experience is unverifiable. I disagree. I want to see why they feel the need to tell me that.

[_stemelbow]

Stem, if you perform carbon dating tests and I perform carbon dating tests, we will both receive the same results. If you pray for a testimony and I pray for a testimony, there is a good chance we will receive different result. The spiritual is not at all like the scientific.

You and I aren't using the same tools when we pray. but you are I can perform carbon dating by using the same tools. Its not the best comparison on those grounds. Fortunately, I can use certain tools one time and later use those same tools and get the same exact results in spiritual expereinces. So, it tests pretty good for me.

[_Runtu]

So from a believers perspective, how am I to understand the criticism seriously if the criticism does not and can not understand my own evaluation of spiritual experiences? it seems the only value then in the criticisms is to get me to question my own testing. It makes it appear that criticisms of my testing is about like those who criticize carbon dating as unreliable--they simply don't know.

What you do with criticism is your business and does not affect the validity of the criticism. If your spiritual experiences override valid criticism, that's up to you. Whether I choose to accept carbon dating says nothing about the validity of carbon dating. I think you get into trouble when you equate subjective internal experience with repeatable and verifiable experiments.

Well, as I've said, of course there are different conclusions drawn in the realm of te spiritual. I didn't say its a foolproof method of determingin truth. There are other methods that need to be taken and weighed in the balance too.

So, just out of curiosity, how would you determine that the Laffertys spiritual experience is not as valid and sure as your spiritual experience?