Testing Stuff

[_Themis]

MG:
The respondents varied in their answers. I would expect that, knowing that each individual is different and would respond to unique manifestations of the Spirit. And we don't know that some of the respondents did feel only emotion rather than the Spirit itself. The problems is, we don't know, we can only surmise.

That's the point. All you are doing is surmising about things you don't know.

MG:
I am suggesting that as I said above, we can only know what we know.

This says nothing. Many people say they know when they really don't. They just are absolutly covident they know. I see this especially with the spiritiual experience.

We have to accept the fact that emotion is the obvious response/reaction to most stimuli coming to us either internally or externally.

After we interpret the stimuli. Spiritual expereiences are almost all stimuli with no message such as audio. One still has to interpret the stimuli, and usually will do it how they have been taught or want to interpret it.

We cannot discount the possibility, however, that the Spirit may at times witness to Truth in tandem with or uniquely separate from any internal emotional response.

You don't even know what the spirit is. It could just be internal to you, even though you may be able to sense the environment in ways we don't know about yet. Here is an interesting bit about intuition. The whole program is interesting as well. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=huaF2sh7TNg

To throw out any possibility that the Spirit may have an interplay with human beings because emotion is usually the default position is unwarranted.

But I bet you can't point to where I did discount it. There are so many piossibilities, but many, especailly in the church only believe the one they have been taught.

Unless, of course, you also default to the position that unless in can be independently measured or verified by an outside source at the point of origin it is without value.

It would be nice, but since you can't it is not really reasonable to conclude what you do about it, especially since it has such a bad record. I linked an earlier article about it from the ensign.

MG:
You are correct. I think that we can agree that human beings cannot manufacture an experience with the divine.

Another set of assumptions you haven't verified yet.

This being true, we cannot discount the possibility that the divine (or what we refer to as the Spirit) may at times reveal Truth (rather than "truth" received through pure emotion) to those who successfully seek guidance by following the tester's guidelines emphatically and exactly.

Like I said, so far it has a poor record, and realiability is also lacking. I see people using the spirit to get help in everyday life and decisions, yet they probably make more mistakes because they end up listning to what they think is the spirit, which is just themselves, and going ahead with what they want even though other evidences are suggesting a different route.

When all is said and done, Themis, you can only know what is true for yourself.

This is not the truth I am talking about. I am talking about truth that is the same for everyone, not tuths that are subjective and can be false for some and true for others like whetehr the Book of Mormon is historical, or the earth in the shape of a sphere.

Asking others for proof knowing that it cannot be demonstrated to you empirically is rather fruitless at the least, and at the other extreme possibly even a mockery towards God. You, the tested, telling the tester how and when to do things.

I am just trying to show that people are relying on things that are not realiable to the extent that they ignore the more realiable methods.

[_stemelbow]

I know what the church teaches and how members think and feel about the spiritual experience generally. You have not really addressed the subject of your own thread, which I find disappointing. I also think I have been more spicific about the topic. You don't have to continue, and I can understand why you don't . This is a topic you may have noticed other believing members aviod like the plague.

Since the plague is about as far from me as anything out there I'm not really attempting avoid it at all, so you bring up a great analogy. Thanks for the sarcasm to begin this though. I'm not avoiding it.

My OP was asking what should be expected for the existence of God? essentially. I got very little other than things like, "well if God were there we would be able to know it". Okay, but how? I say the only way to know the things of God is to deal with God via the Spirit. Now, i realize that requires some amount of faith, but so? So it requires faith. So it requires effort and stretching your thoughts and minds a little. No big deal.

If some thing is realiable, then it can be shown to be that.

This is the point of this thread. And yet people keep repeating this. You are assuming it seems, then, if God is real then it can be shown that He exists. I say true. And I describe the only means to know I can imagine. You say true and then you describe means to know He exists which apply to things that aren't God. It simply doesn't make sense. If god exists, He is the supernatural, yet your idea it seems is to rely on the natural methods to discern to show that he exists. I don't' see how that works.

You even used and example like crabon dating whihc can easily be shown to be realible.

In context my use of it was to explain that by employing it you can't go back in history to determine when something began to be to compare to carbon dates. Its not questioning carbon dating as a means to determine the age of things. Not in the least. Its an example used to get at the idea of whether the methods we develop to determine things like the age of natural items is the same type of methods expected to determine the existence of God.

I have known that the spiritual is very unrealble for a long time now, even for much of my believing days. This is based on my personal experience as well as that of viewing others. Those who I have known who may claim realiabllity are the ones who clearly do not.

Thanks for your stated assumption. I get it. I hear ya. I agree to some extent. But, my position diverges wherein you conclude that you have viewed other's spiritual experiences and in your conclusion, unfounded by the way, that you know that when someone claims their spiritual experience is reliable, they simply do not know what they're talking about.

Here is a classic article about it. We really can be very circular in our thinking here
http://LDS.org/ensign/2007/03/questions-and-answers?lang=eng

I think you miss my point, But oh well. I'll try again. Let's say that James had a burrito yesterday. For some reason you and I become very curious what he ate for lunch yesterday. We can probably search his britches for any receipt, thinking if he went to buy lunch we might find evidence. We could ask someone else who might know what he had. There are probably many things we could do, but the best, I'd say, to figure out what he ate is to ask him. I'm saying if we want to know there is a God the best way to know is to ask Him. Indeed, i don't know any other better way. That's not to say that people haven't asked and concluded something other than another. But we already know there are plenty of things that could get in the way of particular answers and conclusions. Its to be expected.

[_stemelbow]

So we're testing the tester? I don't think that is possible, especially when we consider the fact that God would be able to outsmart us if he sees that we are using means to test for his existence that are not in accordance with the means which he has outlined in scripture.

Reading through some of this thread reinforces my belief that relying on emotion is unreliable when it comes to verifying religious Truth (yes, with a capital T), but relying on the Spirit (with a capital S) is. The conversation I'm hearing seems to equate emotional response with a Spiritual witness. Do we know that an emotional experience/response is synonymous with a Spiritual witness? I think the evidence seems to show otherwise as many here would agree.

The question at hand, at least as far as I can see, is how would we or how can we recognize a Spiritual witness vs. an emotional experience?

Regards,
MG

Its a worthwhile question. I don't think the answer is all that easy though.

[_Themis]

My OP was asking what should be expected for the existence of God? essentially. I got very little other than things like, "well if God were there we would be able to know it". Okay, but how? I say the only way to know the things of God is to deal with God via the Spirit. Now, i realize that requires some amount of faith, but so? So it requires faith. So it requires effort and stretching your thoughts and minds a little. No big deal.

This is assuming God exists, or at least the biblical God. The question is whether the spirit is really some divine being communicating with you. How would you know it is a divine being, or just yourself and possibly the environment included in some way. This still is the most important thing to establish.

This is the point of this thread. And yet people keep repeating this. You are assuming it seems, then, if God is real then it can be shown that He exists. I say true. And I describe the only means to know I can imagine.

Which God? IF the biblical God then we could look for physical footprints like a world wide flood. The problem gets worse when many events in the Bible are being found to be incorrect. How about actual gold plates that show a story about an ancient isralite group in the Americas. There are plenty of things that could point to God.

You say true and then you describe means to know He exists which apply to things that aren't God. It simply doesn't make sense. If god exists, He is the supernatural, yet your idea it seems is to rely on the natural methods to discern to show that he exists. I don't' see how that works.

Supernatural is an excuse for why my God can't be seen, heard, touched, or leave any evidence. Not very helpful. If God exists then he would be natural even if we still lack the tools to see him, but we could look for those footprints, but then God is hiding on purpose from us.

In context my use of it was to explain that by employing it you can't go back in history to determine when something began to be to compare to carbon dates. Its not questioning carbon dating as a means to determine the age of things. Not in the least. Its an example used to get at the idea of whether the methods we develop to determine things like the age of natural items is the same type of methods expected to determine the existence of God.

And my point is that those methods are so much more relaible then your method which has so much disagreement between people regarding it. So why should I ignore the more realible if it is in conflict with the less realiable?

Thanks for your stated assumption. I get it. I hear ya. I agree to some extent. But, my position diverges wherein you conclude that you have viewed other's spiritual experiences and in your conclusion, unfounded by the way, that you know that when someone claims their spiritual experience is reliable, they simply do not know what they're talking about.

It is not really an assumption, but based on observation and talking to many people who discuss there experieinces. Those who claim realibility usually are not doing as well in life as those who tend to admit they are not very good at it.

I think you miss my point, But oh well. I'll try again. Let's say that James had a burrito yesterday. For some reason you and I become very curious what he ate for lunch yesterday. We can probably search his britches for any receipt, thinking if he went to buy lunch we might find evidence. We could ask someone else who might know what he had. There are probably many things we could do, but the best, I'd say, to figure out what he ate is to ask him.

Yes the best way to ask James, but then you can see, hear and touch him. If he tells you, you will be quite sure what he told you. It is not the same thing with God. People can't even agree to what he is saying, although I bet we wouldn't see much disagreement asking james. Many change their mind about the message they got all the time. I doubt anyone will change their mind about what James said about eating the burrito. I hope you see the difference.

I'm saying if we want to know there is a God the best way to know is to ask Him. Indeed, i don't know any other better way.

The better way is to look at all the evidence, especially the physical which is significantly more reliable. People asg God all the time and get just about as many different answers. The realibalilty you get is to be able to produce the same kind of experience over again. Some learn to do this even though they can't agree with each other on the message.

That's not to say that people haven't asked and concluded something other than another. But we already know there are plenty of things that could get in the way of particular answers and conclusions. Its to be expected.

Which is why it is not relaible enough to put to much stock in what interpretations we think we are getting, especially if they contradict methods much more reliable.

[_Quasimodo]

I think I have written this elsewhere.

Everyone reads the Book of Mormon differently, based on their past experiences, cultural heritage, and present emotional state.

Good point! I think that is true of any book one reads or movie one watches (the good ones, anyway) fiction or non-fiction.

Religion IS personal. It might be unreasonable for a person to assume that his/ her personal beliefs should translate to anyone else.

That's the value of science. It has no preconception to support. It's only concerned with what is true. Not what a person hopes is true. That's why it's theories are changed every time new evidence is found. Dogma has no place in science, just the truth as far as we can ascertain.

[_stemelbow]

This is assuming God exists, or at least the biblical God.

Certainly the point of this thread assumes that God exists. Otherwise what would be the point of my questioning?

The question is whether the spirit is really some divine being communicating with you. How would you know it is a divine being, or just yourself and possibly the environment included in some way. This still is the most important thing to establish.

Which I am saying can't be established by any measurable that is available to us. How would you establish an inner communication that works from Spirit to spirit? That's pretty much the point of this thread in a nutshell. I haven't seen anyone answer it as yet.

Which God? IF the biblical God then we could look for physical footprints like a world wide flood.

oh boy. Many a biblical believer takes the world wide flood theory and assumes more of a localized flood or even a metaphoric flood.

The problem gets worse when many events in the Bible are being found to be incorrect. How about actual gold plates that show a story about an ancient isralite group in the Americas. There are plenty of things that could point to God.

It seems to me you are trying to determine the plausibility of religious claims rather than stick to the point of the OP here.

Supernatural is an excuse for why my God can't be seen, heard, touched, or leave any evidence. Not very helpful. If God exists then he would be natural even if we still lack the tools to see him, but we could look for those footprints, but then God is hiding on purpose from us.

You do sound a bit like an ex-LDS person, or believer at least. What is wrong if God has a purpose to purposefully hide from us?

And my point is that those methods are so much more relaible then your method which has so much disagreement between people regarding it. So why should I ignore the more realible if it is in conflict with the less realiable?

huh? come again? I did not say ignore the reliable. Indeed what you call reliable I say learn and grow as much as you can from it. I'm just saying there is more. I plain disagree that the spiritual is unreliable, particularly based on your theory that its unreliable because not everyone agrees concerning spiritual and religion. Whateves. We've talked about this enough already. Agree to disagree?

[_Themis]

Certainly the point of this thread assumes that God exists. Otherwise what would be the point of my questioning?

An assumption you should not make. Shouldn't that be the first truth you should establish?

Which I am saying can't be established by any measurable that is available to us. How would you establish an inner communication that works from Spirit to spirit? That's pretty much the point of this thread in a nutshell. I haven't seen anyone answer it as yet.

I actually linked to MG a video on intuition. A lot of interesting things are being reserached on about this very subject. No one has answered your question because they like you do not have good answers. Since it is not very relaible, it cannot be used to answer this question that a divine being is communicating to you, and is probably more likely that it is not. You would think a divine being could come up with a better way. He is supposed to have many angels, and if he could go to Saul and Alma the younger who wern't even praying for guidance, but were trying to destroy the church, you would think the rest who are praying could get this kind of response which would be a far better method. You would see much agreement on the message as well. But then we would know right. LOL Not that he cared about Saul and Alma the younger. You taked about having faith, but then many do and still can't get the same message. Faith in a religious setting is just about asking you to believe without evidence (Blind Faith).

oh boy. Many a biblical believer takes the world wide flood theory and assumes more of a localized flood or even a metaphoric flood.

Ya Many do today. Most didn't hundreds of years ago. Same with the age of the earth. HGT, etc. The point is it is the physical evidence that is changing our beliefs and understanding with objective truths, not the spiritual.

It seems to me you are trying to determine the plausibility of religious claims rather than stick to the point of the OP here.

Lets take a look.

So the LDS position is this (it seems): Pray and see if God will "show" you truth.

It seems apparent to me many don't find that an adequate way to determine truth.

That is the LDS position, and it includes objective truths, or truths that are true for everyone. The problem is that this does not work, and the physical evidence is what is driving it. Just look at apolgetics.

Indeed most of the criticisms deal with scientific concepts or established rules of historic research. But how are the tools (scientific method and such) developed to figure out that which we can see, or detect going to translate to determine the existence of something we can't see or detect, like God?

Easy, we look at the claims being made by the ones who do exist and claim to be speaking for God. In the LDS case Joseph Smith would be the pivotal guy to look at to see if his claims are true. Now since as I think has been shown the physical is far better at showing us objective truth or reality then the spiritul, it should have more wieght to it then the spiritual. This is not the case usually because cherished beliefs are hard to let go(Personal experince), and we have so much emotional and social baggage attached to them to let them go.

You do sound a bit like an ex-LDS person, or believer at least.

I am still a member, but do not believe some of the core claims.

What is wrong if God has a purpose to purposefully hide from us?

How would you know, and what is more likely, religions just telling you this to get you to have faith in their claims, or God really wanting to hide. It's not like God told you or I this.

I'm just saying there is more.

Don't get me wrong, I love the spiritual, I just know it has severe limitations in giving objective truths.

I plain disagree that the spiritual is unreliable, particularly based on your theory that its unreliable because not everyone agrees concerning spiritual and religion. Whateves.

And yet you cannot even begin to show how it would be realible except in producing the expereience, not about the interpretation and it's acuuacy for objective truths. I even said you could make up examples so as to aviod using personal expereinces you are uncomortable sharing.

I should add that when I am talking about relaibility, I mean about objective truths, not the subjective ones. The church claims we can know the objective ones, so I am asking how you can show that this information is correct. The more correct information the more reliable it is.

Here is an example. If one prays and asks God if the book of the Law of the Lord it rue and they get what they descibe as a profound experience involving more then just emotion to them that they determine that God told them it is true. Now they have been able to create this expeerince and others like it interpreting it the same way each time, and they believe they are happier and better off for following this book and it's religion. Does this mean the Book is from God and his expereinces divine communication?