Hi Fallibleone! So great to hear from u again. Yes the trip was great. I hadn’t seen my family down there for nine years. It was quite enjoyable and quite contrasting culturally. You get a strange sense of “being� after returning. I have to return to my prior life. Let me see if I can expand on a couple of your questions.
'Spirit-led man'? How does one go about identifying one of those? Is it a matter of self-identification?
Well actually it’s a man or women either being of the human species. The
“Spirit-led" part is personally known and ostensibly recognized by believers. Not all but many.
Quote:
By the technique of such an incarnation of living truth the philosophic hypothesis of the probability of God becomes a religious reality.
I'm afraid this sailed way over my head. I'll blame the pills I'm taking. What is a technique of incarnation of living truth?
Ok the incarnation of a living truth is much more simply expressed as
“taking something to heart�. The meaning doesn’t really physically turn into heart muscle as a strictly scientific interpretation might imply. But actually metaphorically
the meaning becomes part of the embodiment of a human “being�. So the
“incarnation of living truth� is the incorporation (corp - body) of that truth within the “real being� of that person.
Hope that helped Fallibleone.
Science is not big on personal experience.
Exactly. So if you have a scientific analysis as I’ve presented that implies extraterrestrial authors to a book. How do you examine a book whose content is so uniquely unusual so that it may not be quite analytically contained within the parameters of earthly scientific methods?
Is it possible that the same personal experiential inquiries that led us to base our faith on science, can be used to evaluate the extraterrestrial content of the book in question?
If that personal experiential inquiry was sufficient to establish our lifelong belief or non-belief in God,
why wouldn’t it suffice to evaluate content that may be beyond earthly scientific parameters?
If aheists deny the science used to establish the extraterrestrial nature f the content of the book, then
how can they trust in that science for other important positions that they hold “TRUE� in their life? I mean the science they trust in is trustworthy or it isn’t. Right?
You trust in science too, joer. You are doing so right now. You do so every day. Likewise, I trust my own experience and self-examination every day.
Your right Fallibleone. We do.
Why is it the atheist who should adjust their methods?
They don’t have to adjust.
But at least I would think they would want to be consistent in their application of those methods. What good is it if you use science for proof for one purpose that suits you yet deny it’s validity when it’s proof doesn’t suit you?
Or do you really believe that every single question there is can be answered by personal experience?
I believe we personally evaluate the answers with or without science
and we make choices based on that personal evaluation.
The fact is that things are not so black and white. Theists trust in science and atheists undergo experiential learning.
Exactly.
I think the difference may be to do with the areas in which we all apply these different methods of examination.
Exactly.
As an atheist, I do not use science to inform every single part of my life.
Exactly.
My understanding is that by contrast, theists do use personal experience and affirmation of God to inform every part of their lives.
Nope. They use science also just like atheists.
As you correctly pointed out about me.
Please, theists, correct me if I have it wrong. Experiential learning, I believe, is very important in the realm of self-development, for example. I do not find it useful in attempting to determine objective truths about the universe. I find science much more useful for that. Notice I said 'much more useful'.
This is just the point Fallibleone.
When you’ve found a book that has determined “objective truths about the universe� before the scientific discovery of those objective truths, How do you deal with that. As an atheist OR a theist?
Apologies if this is incoherent. I need a break. With any luck I'll do better when I return.
It‘s very good Fallible One. It deals with the current point I’ve raised exactly. So the question is:
How do we deal with the statistically implied truth that the book’s content is beyond our current science?
I’m not claiming to have the answer.
I’m just curious how an atheist will deal with that scientifically proven fact? Will they deny the scientific proof? Will they provide scientific evidence for that denial? Do we deny that truth because it doesn’t fit our current scientific conceptual frame of reference? If we did that as atheists wouldn’t we be doing the same thing as religionists whose antiquated Bible stories don’t stand up to today’s scientific examination?
I mean as atheists how do you deal with that;
A scientific proof of non-earthly content. I mean even the Vatican has admitted to the probability of extraterrestrials and made the moral statement that they are our brothers and sisters in God. Is the Vatican now more advanced in it’s thinking than atheists by accepting the probability of extra-terrestrial beings?
What do we make of this book?
''It doesn''t have to be like this. All we need to do is make sure we keep talking.'' - Stephen Hawking
You can say that again Stephen.
''It doesn''t have to be like this. All we need to do is make sure we keep talking.''
