Is it possible, to have a correct epistemological perception of god?

[Celpha Fiael]

Philosophy is more "abstract" and different, but both perhaps come from the same ground.

Yes, this is true. Science, especially the scientific method, was originated in philosophical thought, but science is now the most efficient, prolific, and sophisticated intellectual framework that's emerged from our species, far more so than just philosophy. If philosophy was the common ancestor, science is the homo sapien.

 

[Tnerb]

(There is the philosophy of science...) Regardless, we've side-tracked.... I think you were using science to justify religious beliefe, while I think that the two are intimately connected. One can't say science says this and it is therefore that religion is subject to criticism, when, philosophy and science together, or both combinend, do not justify a criticism of religion from the perspective, still. Hmmph. So I don't see where we're going except for a discussion of science and philosophy, etc. Possibly you are right, anyhow.

 

[Celpha Fiael]

Okay lol.

 

[Celpha Fiael]

I'll try once again, (we seemed to be so close to getting somewhere!). Your question was "is it possible to have a correct epistemological perception of god?" The overarching answer is no, because "correct" is a subjective term (especially concerning a god) unless it is speaking scientifically. Your question is not a scientific one, but a philosophical one, so I figure we must be speaking subjective to our own opinions of "correct" and "god".

Therefore, you can theoretically have a correct epistemological perception of what you define god as for yourself and yourself alone, don't expect anyone else to be convinced by it. The same goes with others'; they have to stay in their world, and you have to stay in yours.

The reason I mentioned the beauty of science was to point out how it bridges this gap, it takes people out of their subjective opinions and places them onto the communicable, universally understandable, and solid ground of testing and evidence. Therein lies what I see as the apical difference between pure philosophy and science.

 

[lightgigantic]

Please, intelligent discussion only...

For once, I hope to create a religious thread on par with philosophy forums' religion threads, which, i'm too lazy to read! Or post links!!

The intention is to decide if or not it is possible to have a god, percise, coherent knowledge.

I am unsure myself, greatly, about how this would work, but I think that it is possible to ask... I hope someone can clarify this for me. I don't want any "God is impossible" without proof scientifically or philosophically. We have had this discussion many times before. But it needs to be done right. Indeed, it should probably be an important thread.

...I guess I am asking only if it is possible to have a god and on what grounds. And am unsure about any of the other details, of which, may be filled in?

not sure if i catch the gist of the thread

Are you asking for what are the qualities of god?

Like for instance some of the qualities of water are that it is liquid, transparent and quenches our thirst (hence descriptions of water as "gritty, green and yellow striped and relatively easy to nail to the ceiling are incongruent")

????

or is it more what are the qualities of the person who claims perception of god?

Like for instance if one claims that they have seen beautiful green trees yet cannot determine the difference between a green, black and red tshirt, it raises doubts whether the beautiful trees they actually saw were green

?????

 

[Tnerb]

good post lg. will get to it.

 

[Tnerb]

not sure if i catch the gist of the thread

Are you asking for what are the qualities of god?

Like for instance some of the qualities of water are that it is liquid, transparent and quenches our thirst (hence descriptions of water as "gritty, green and yellow striped and relatively easy to nail to the ceiling are incongruent")

????

or is it more what are the qualities of the person who claims perception of god?

Like for instance if one claims that they have seen beautiful green trees yet cannot determine the difference between a green, black and red tshirt, it raises doubts whether the beautiful trees they actually saw were green

?????

not sure if i catch the gist of the thread

Read more of it.

Are you asking for what are the qualities of god?

Not ENTIRELY sure what i'm asking. I'm saying a lot of things, mostly:

What is religious belief?

How is it possible to have a correct god, not subject to criticism, and is it possible to have such a god? Are the epistemological Gods subject to criticism, ? There are many questions and I am getting little answers. Back a few pages, I asked what was closest to the main question...

Here it is,

"

Anyway, to re-state my first question: is it possible to have a correct epistemolgoical perception of "god(God)"? I think this is my main question. Similar to "Why one should believe in god", yes? The other thread.

"

Then LG, there's this:


"
Not sure it was ever answered or not, or validated, at the correctness of a God stance. Or if a godstance is appropriate or correct or incorrect, or how this should "shake" the "foundations" of certain peoples ... attitudes?

"

This was written directly after the above quote.
So I suppose we're puzzling my meaning, and viewing the thread, at least we are doing so in my mind, until we can figure out what I mean, even by the title. I am personally working on this personally, and am in the stage of development to such a ideal. Hopefully I'll manage.

This was an intersting statement:

or is it more what are the qualities of the person who claims perception of god?

Possibly.

This you said might suit, I am asking a lot of questions related so maybe that will work:

Are you asking for what are the qualities of god?

Like for instance some of the qualities of water are that it is liquid, transparent and quenches our thirst (hence descriptions of water as "gritty, green and yellow striped and relatively easy to nail to the ceiling are incongruent")

or is it more what are the qualities of the person who claims perception of god?

Like for instance if one claims that they have seen beautiful green trees yet cannot determine the difference between a green, black and red tshirt, it raises doubts whether the beautiful trees they actually saw were green

?????

Perhaps, as you say; "or is it more what are the qualities of the person who claims perception of god?"
There's many interesting questions, I would like some answers. I would ask if his perception of god or God is correct or not. I think I was seeking some epistemological discussion, but it probably will not get to that or it may, not sure. We've talked a lot about the qualities of a person who claims to have a god, but not, the qualities of a person who claims perception of god. That would be interesting if you would elaborate a bit for us about your perception of god that you claim to have. Of course, this is only also seeking, further questions. I wanted a good religious thread. This is what I got.

 

[Tnerb]

I'll try once again, (we seemed to be so close to getting somewhere!). Your question was "is it possible to have a correct epistemological perception of god?" The overarching answer is no, because "correct" is a subjective term (especially concerning a god) unless it is speaking scientifically. Your question is not a scientific one, but a philosophical one, so I figure we must be speaking subjective to our own opinions of "correct" and "god".

Therefore, you can theoretically have a correct epistemological perception of what you define god as for yourself and yourself alone, don't expect anyone else to be convinced by it. The same goes with others'; they have to stay in their world, and you have to stay in yours.

The reason I mentioned the beauty of science was to point out how it bridges this gap, it takes people out of their subjective opinions and places them onto the communicable, universally understandable, and solid ground of testing and evidence. Therein lies what I see as the apical difference between pure philosophy and science.

Didn't we ?

The overarching answer is no, because "correct" is a subjective term (especially concerning a god) unless it is speaking scientifically.

You're confusing the facts of the matter with science. or something. Because your saying the "overarching answer is no", is outright discrase. The questions I ask will remain to have validy. Correct however is not entirely subjective considering the validation of god is used under the vocabulary "correct." You are confusing God being false with science, while God mixed in with the word science is out right denial to Gods existence.

Your question is not a scientific one, but a philosophical one, so I figure we must be speaking subjective to our own opinions of "correct" and "god".

true.

Therefore, you can theoretically have a correct epistemological perception of what you define god as for yourself and yourself alone, don't expect anyone else to be convinced by it.

or perhaps as we were getting at eariler, uh, so many distractions... faith alone is the answer, if their god exists. There are many possible routes to take. So, i'm "going to heaven " I can have a God, and no one criticize me for being a man of god? That's news!

The reason I mentioned the beauty of science was to point out how it bridges this gap, it takes people out of their subjective opinions and places them onto the communicable, universally understandable, and solid ground of testing and evidence. Therein lies what I see as the apical difference between pure philosophy and science

Ok this was neat. Anyway that's how it is from over here . Later.

 

[Celpha Fiael]

You're confusing the facts of the matter with science. or something.

You say this as if there is a difference. There are no objective facts of the matter in regard to your question.

Because your saying the "overarching answer is no", is outright discrase. The questions I ask will remain to have validy. Correct however is not entirely subjective considering the validation of god is used under the vocabulary "correct." You are confusing God being false with science, while God mixed in with the word science is out right denial to Gods existence.

I have no idea what you just tried to say. :bugeye:

 

[lightgigantic]

existabrent

“
Are you asking for what are the qualities of god?
”
Not ENTIRELY sure what i'm asking. I'm saying a lot of things, mostly:

What is religious belief?

How is it possible to have a correct god, not subject to criticism, and is it possible to have such a god? Are the epistemological Gods subject to criticism, ? There are many questions and I am getting little answers. Back a few pages, I asked what was closest to the main question...

Here it is,

"

Anyway, to re-state my first question: is it possible to have a correct epistemolgoical perception of "god(God)"? I think this is my main question. Similar to "Why one should believe in god", yes? The other thread.

in short, god is the substance of truth
while religiosity is in the pursuit of knowledge of god, there are many religious practices which may not be considered eternal (or truthful in all circumstances) - like for instance a mother involved in religious practices would have different obligations than say a renunciate - however both the mother and renunciate would be expected to display the quality of surrender to god in order to be deemed religious.

This is why in the BG the conclusive statement is

BG 18.66: Abandon all varieties of religion (dharma) and just surrender unto Me. I shall deliver you from all sinful reactions. Do not fear.

in other words there are so many dharmas in this world (technically termed sva-dharma, or dharma that pertains to the material designation, ie - mother, renunciate, merchant, etc) - all these are subsidiary to the main dharma (technically called sanatana dharma, or eternal dharma) - surrender unto god

hence the previous two verses read

BG 18.64: Because you are My very dear friend, I am speaking to you My supreme instruction, the most confidential knowledge of all. Hear this from Me, for it is for your benefit.

BG 18.65: Always think of Me, become My devotee, worship Me and offer your homage unto Me. Thus you will come to Me without fail. I promise you this because you are My very dear friend.

"

Then LG, there's this:


"
Not sure it was ever answered or not, or validated, at the correctness of a God stance. Or if a godstance is appropriate or correct or incorrect, or how this should "shake" the "foundations" of certain peoples ... attitudes?

at least from the POV of a theistic philosophers, god exists without the possibility of not existing (unlike say a pair of sunglasses, which came into being at a certain point of time due to an arrangement of atoms and will cease to be at a certain point of time due to an arrangement of atoms)


This was an intersting statement:

“
Originally Posted by LG
or is it more what are the qualities of the person who claims perception of god?
”
Possibly.

This you said might suit, I am asking a lot of questions related so maybe that will work:

the qualities of persons who have direct perception of god are given in scriptures (of which there are many)

NoI 1: A sober person who can tolerate the urge to speak, the mind's demands, the actions of anger and the urges of the tongue, belly and genitals is qualified to make disciples all over the world.

in short, a person who has direct perception of god partakes of the same godly nature of god, since to associate with the topmost purity one must also be pure

“
Originally Posted by Light Gigantic
Are you asking for what are the qualities of god?

Like for instance some of the qualities of water are that it is liquid, transparent and quenches our thirst (hence descriptions of water as "gritty, green and yellow striped and relatively easy to nail to the ceiling are incongruent")
”
“
or is it more what are the qualities of the person who claims perception of god?

Like for instance if one claims that they have seen beautiful green trees yet cannot determine the difference between a green, black and red tshirt, it raises doubts whether the beautiful trees they actually saw were green

?????
”
Perhaps, as you say; "or is it more what are the qualities of the person who claims perception of god?"
There's many interesting questions, I would like some answers. I would ask if his perception of god or God is correct or not. I think I was seeking some epistemological discussion, but it probably will not get to that or it may, not sure. We've talked a lot about the qualities of a person who claims to have a god, but not, the qualities of a person who claims perception of god. That would be interesting if you would elaborate a bit for us about your perception of god that you claim to have. Of course, this is only also seeking, further questions. I wanted a good religious thread. This is what I got.

the value of discussing personal perceptions of god is greatly diminished unless one has a stable foundation for discussion - for instance a conversation about the direct perception of gold would not amount to much unless one knew what gold was and its value.

in short though, the best way to see god is to act in such a way that he wants to see you - and the best way to do that is to humbly serve those persons who are dear to him (his great devotees) - so the foundation is understanding who is god and what are the qualities of persons who are dear to him

otherwise one runs the risk of winding up with fools gold