GETTING SUCKED IN? Ask the right questions to get the right answers. (page 2)

Olin Moyles Ghost

But how do you know that God spoke to you? Isn't that your perception? Thus, you're relying on (and trusting in) your perception.

sir82

There is a different kind of knowing, that does not enter through the 5 senses that is offered by God in Christianity.

So a "communication" makes itself known to you. How do you know it is from God?

It's just different Olin. Being raised as a JW from birth, I didn't even know that I had a spirit...even after sorta becoming a Christian. However, I can testify as can millions of others, that when God "speaks" into your spirit.... you will KNOW clearer than anything that you have ever known before. It is very gentle.

In fact, if there are any believers here that do not yet have this internal witness, I would strongly advise them to ask God to personally bear witness with their spirit so that they can have the peace of KNOWING. If a person does not ever have this testimony, they are not a child of God ..... period.

sir82

Yeah but how do you know it's God?

Couldn't it be Mr. Sdfrtvc from planet Deryhbvc who is telepathic, and has planted the suggestion in your mind in such a way that you "know" it's God?

Terry

How do you KNOW there is really a Santa Claus?

1.Your parents told you and they don't lie.

2.You see him everywhere.

3.You get presents on Christmas.

4.The weatherman tracks him on radar when he's in his sleigh on Christmas Eve.

Who tells you there ISN'T really a Santa Claus? A few older kids who are jerks and tease you.

Who are you going to trust; those who love and nurture you and teach you lying is bad. Or, a few older kids who tease you?

You see? It is OBVIOUS there really is a Santa Claus.

Except, guess what? There really ISN'T a Santa Claus.

Now let's see what went wrong with our methodology.

1.We looked for a source authority we could trust

2.We looked for tangible evidence with our own senses

3.We saw the results of Santa's activity

4.We saw empirical data from a meterologist.

Yet---we got a FALSE positive!

What gives?

Here is where we went wrong: we swallowed the FALSE PREMISE automatically BEFORE we tested!

We asked, as a result, the wrong questions.

THE PREMISE of Santa Claus is a being who can be everywhere, who can see us when we are sleeping or awake who whose knowledge includes our moral behavior! IF we can swallow a premise such as that---we are ready to swallow anything!

Hey--why would we accept a supernatural being who is omnipresent and knows our deepest secrets? Ummmm, is it because we've already swallowed yet another false premise?

If we can't apply a common sense awareness of what goes on in the world to our analysis of basic questions we are in no position to turn ON our burglar alarm and prevent our valuable critical powers from being ransacked.

We have to begin replacing supernatural "knowing" with concrete, rational, analytical thinking which matches the everyday world.

It takes effort to begin to see things without the filter of magic thinking.

If you start out thinking that a Supernatural explanation is a given----how far will your explorations take you?

I use to believe in demons. Consequently, if I was in a dark room and heard a strange sound----what credence do you think I would willingly give to the possibility it was a demon???

Now that I don't belive in demons, what do I automatically rule out before going on to the next possible explanation?

You see---you move along down your list of possibles more quickly when the supernatural isn't taking up space on your list.

Terry

Perry

Here is where we went wrong: we swallowed the FALSE PREMISE automatically BEFORE we tested! ...... why would we accept a supernatural being who is omnipresent and knows our deepest secrets? Ummmm, is it because we've already swallowed yet another false premise?

Here is where you are going wrong Terry. The wrong turn (really circular reasoning) you take is in the careless use of the word "false", which you cannot "know". Belief is not the same as proof. We elect politicians all the time knowing that they are liars (as we all have been at one time or another) yet, at the same time we suspend the "knowing" (which we actually have in this case unlike with God) and choose to believe for a time that he will fulfill his campaign promises. Belief preceeds proof. We do it all the time. Why would you give God less than a lying politician?

The only way out of this circle is to first believe, then "know". This is how God very plainly said that it would go down. This is exactly what I experienced.

What you are actually doing is assuming the falsity of an action (belief), when belief is neither true nor false. It would be like saying "drinking water is false" to characterize that action.

Sir82,

Couldn't it be Mr. Sdfrtvc from planet Deryhbvc who is telepathic, and has planted the suggestion in your mind in such a way that you "know" it's God?

Yes, it is possible. But, the fruit of that influence would bear that out as true or false in due course.

Perry

Luke 4 - the twelve asked of him the parable. And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:

1 Cor. 2 - 11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.

Hebrews 11: 6 he that cometh to God must believe that he is

Belief preceeds knowing in almost everything we do. It is absolutely fundamental to our subjective life experience, science, as well as with God. Yet, many insist on changing the commonality of this when it comes to God. God hasn't asked us to do anything that we don't do thousands of times in everyday life without batting an eye.

sir82

Yes, it is possible. But, the fruit of that influence would bear that out as true or false in due course.

Maybe Mr. Sderetgxyz is a really nice guy, but not really God.

Or maybe he's just really patient, and has a diabolical plan for you, but is being nice for the time being.

I'm still not seeing how you can know it's God and not someone / something else.

bohm

Perry, let me get this straight. Are you saying that the christian God is there because he communicate to you by giving you a 'spriritual' feeling when you read about him or try to talk to him? OR because you believe in him being an a-priori truth like eg. logic is an a-priori truth? OR both?

Terry

Here is where we went wrong: we swallowed the FALSE PREMISE automatically BEFORE we tested! ...... why would we accept a supernatural being who is omnipresent and knows our deepest secrets? Ummmm, is it because we've already swallowed yet another false premise?

Here is where you are going wrong Terry. The wrong turn (really circular reasoning) you take is in the careless use of the word "false", which you cannot "know". Belief is not the same as proof.

Perry, Perry, Perry....

The words "true" and "false" require context to have any value in a sentence. You have to apply them to something which CAN be true or CAN be false or else they are just sounds you make with your mouth.

When you reason you go from your foundation (premise)

to a conclusion by connective links (logic).

The conclusion has to follow the premise when logic is applied.

However, when the starting point assumes an error it must follow that logic will give you a conclusion with error.

No, you cannot "know" before you test if you use the word "know" to mean "prove to oneself."

In science you collect all the data you can before you hypothesize what your investigation is going to mean. The Hypothesis follows from the data. Further testing requires a clear way for your hypothesis to be demonstrated false (if false is the correct conclusion.)

Now, you probably already have this information clearly before you.

What you appear to be saying is something else entirely.

For instance:

1.I don't like what you are saying, therefore, you must be wrong.

2.Belief cannot be tested in the same way as your examples, therefore, it can't be made wrong by your descriptions of it.

You call this circular reasoning.

However...

Moving the game to another arena is begging the question.

You've moved the question about the supernatural, God, the bible, spiritual things from the test of reality to a mystical experience entirely inside of your subjective self and away from the practical world of "true" and "false".

Should you not acknowledge this? Aloud?

The way people tend to "prove" things from scripture is by using everyday language in a metaphorical or recursive way that cuts the connection to reality from everyday language and makes it elastic and meaningless for precise understanding.

In other words: you are cheating the discussion by wrecking language.

Terry

GETTING SUCKED IN? Ask the right questions to get the right answers.

Share this