Btw, if faith is inherently subjective, and the experience of eg. food is not, then obviously the two things cant be on the same evidential footing by logic alone.
Faith... and Trust: The Same Things?
by AGuest 452 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
PSacramento
Boneparte. And for the sake of it he believe it as strongly as i believed the dinner i just had existed.
Well IF he claime to the the histoprical figure of Bonaparte then, regardless of how sure He was, we know that is not the case because:
We KNOW that Bonaparte was excuted and even if He wasn't, would over 200 years old.
So, unless that person was really freaking old and could some have give us a benefit of the doubt", there would be no reason to believe him.
Now, if he claimed that he BELIEVES He is Bonaparte then he belief may will be as strong as our belief that he is NOT.
No way to quantify the "strength" of a belief.
-
PSacramento
My objection is that some believers won't admit its highly subjective. They adamantly insist their visions and voices are objective facts. It is disingenuous.
I understand that and my point is, to THEM, that is what they are and many times because, according to them, they are as real as things you may see as non-subjective at all.
So, back to the original point of them KNOWING God as well as you KNOW you had a sandwich because to THEM their experience of knowing God is as real as your experience of a ham and cheese sandwich, light on the mayo with a nice beer on the side ;)
-
bohm
Ah, but some people would say the same about a thinking being without a brain, so that cant be it. Lets say he claim he once drank a portion of blessed water and thats why he lived so long. Is it then correct for us to say his experience, however true it feels, is most likely false?
-
PSacramento
Btw, if faith is inherently subjective, and the experience of eg. food is not, then obviously the two things cant be on the same evidential footing by logic alone.
Sure, IF as you say faith is inherently subjective.
And I think that faith in something that is not material is just that, subjective.
That doesn't mean its wrong or ridiculous or anything negative at all.
-
PSacramento
Ah, but some people would say the same about a thinking being without a brain, so that cant be it. Lets say he claim he once drank a portion of blessed water and thats why he lived so long. Is it then correct for us to say his experience, however true i feel, is most likely false?
Yes but why would we say it? because we have no point of reference for a blessed water that makes one live so long.
If we did have that, we won't think that way, would we?
-
bohm
Now what you call the point of reference (for blessed water) has to do with direct experiments right?
Can you perhaps explain clearly what that point of referense is and why that does not apply to god?
-
PSacramento
Now what you call the point of reference (for blessed water) has to do with direct experiments right?
sure.
Can you perhaps explain clearly what that point of referense is and why that does not apply to god?
It does apply to God, everything humans understand and know ( not always the same thing) is base don their ability to "assimilate" and that tends to be based on some sort of "point of reference". Take the example of the colour red, we KNOW that colour exists and KNOW it to be red based on a common POR, typiclaly our eyes ability to see it and having been taught that what we see = red.
A person blind since birth has no POR, red doesn't exist for them so, even soemthing as objective ( for us) as the color red is subjective to a blind person.
In regards to God, for someone that has direct expereince with God, His existence is undeniable, much like our colour red.
For those with no direct experience with God, his existence is non-existence, much like the colour red to a blind person.
SO, it is quite correct to say that, for a person with direct expereince with God (POR), God is as real as the sandwhich we just had for lunch.
-
bohm
But there is a huge difference between a real experience and just real. We could add our friend napoleon to the list and then his experience of being napoleon is as real as the experience of god and of the sandwhich. Its a moot point, i will grant it without objection; what matters is if there is a way to say: he properly isnt napoleon and cofty had a sandwhich. I claim its possible to do that, and the same machinery applies to god.
-
bohm
As for red, the experience of the color is by far the less convincing argument. Our blind friend can make experiments just as well as we can and Establish red exist far better than newton could.