Personal testimony is not reliable evidence, since people are subject to having strange beliefs, delusions, mass delusions, mental illness, optical illusions, and other phenomenon that make our perception unreliable.
Some Facts of Religion
- Thread starter BeHereNow
- Start date
I apply science when science is needed.
People are executed based on circumstancial evidence, hardly scientific.
My belief sysatem holds that knowledge can be gained through non-rational means.
You disagee.
You are entitled to your beliefs.
Solidify the shakeyness.
You may be right, according to your belief system, that does not concern yhou, until you want to make a point, and then you bring it out with banners.
Scientific knowledge about the world is not always my goal.
Sopmetimes, but I find it has little to say about matters of religion, or even many philosophies, such as Zen.
I see you're still having comprehension problems.
Regardless of who (and how many) believes what, that belief does not dictate what is factual.
And you appear to have a different definition of "knowledge" too.
Personal experience is reliable evidence for the individual.
I do not care if you do not think my wife is beautiful, or my children are loving.
If you have an experience that is, to the best of your investigations and studies, truthful, you will accept it, even if I say it is mistaken.
You do not believe the things you do because you can convince others of the truthfulness. (I could be wrong, doubt it)
Your experiences have convinced you of the truthfulness of certain issues.
It is the same for me.
I have no desire to convert any person or group to my beliefs.
I do sometimes feel a need to show that their beliefs are not the same as my own.
And no more right than my own.
Based on my belief system, of course.
It seems others think only their belief system has value.
My meaning of knowledge is the same as yours.
It is in the getting there that we disagee, and the criterea for judgement.
Factual things are a true state of affairs.
Your belief system has a different means of determing what is determined as a true state of affairs.
Well, I did say non-rational, but irrational is okay too.
You see, by my belief system you are talking rubbish.
Zen monks have been using intuition to arrive at knowledge for 1500 years, and Buddhist monks for a thousand years before that.
~ ~ ~
BTW, many scientists, and moreso mathematicians, also use intuition as a tool for truth.
They would also say your claim is rubbish.
Last edited:
Nope. Knowledge is a justifiable true belief.
If you're using "intuition" to arrive at "knowledge" then it is neither justifiable (i.e. you cannot delineate the steps for another to arrive at the same conclusion) nor shown to be true.
If you're claiming that intuition does indeed impart knowledge then you MUST have a different definition of what "knowledge" means.
Then how can you claim that something IS the "true state of affairs" if it cannot be shown as such to others?
What, under your peculiar system, makes something "true"?
Examples please.
Oh bad fail.
Intuition gives insight, but they still have to show that this intuition did lead to the truth through the usual process.
None of them leap out of bed and declare that their intuition has given them the truth and simply leave it at that.
Otherwise how does one distinguish between true and false intuitions?
When your cup is full, there is no way to give you more.
Knowledge is an end result, not a process.
Don't you agree?
~
~
~
I will be gone a while.
There is absolutely no evidence that Zen has any qualatative truth in it either. It's just a philosophy. You are totally dishonest, saying you were providing facts and have provided none. Your reasoning is laughable, and your idea of what constitutes knowledge is not recognised by any standards of science, logic or common-sense. You have contributed nothing to the understanding of the subject. Basically your whole premise is a fraud. You're just being repative and very very boring :zzz:
I have disproved God, via self-contradiction, which you didn't comment on since it cannot be refuted. (A Being cannot be first and fundamental)
No, I wouldn't just make a pronouncement, but show '"Why existence?":
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2705820&postcount=298
And it also disproves God once again, although that was not its main intent.
I don't think this can be qualatatively proven either. Your theory is a theory, one among many, but IMO this does not constitute proof either.
I have always said that. I can't say Lori_7 or EmptyForceOfChi for example are lying. They have had some experience that I have not, and I can't argue with that. But let's not call it reliable. I think those people would be better served by questioning their own experiences in light of knowledge of the unreliability of the mind.
And none of this kind of knowledge can be compared to scientific knowledge, which is subject to a method that ensures it's reliability to the best of mankind's ability to determine that.
You recently posted a thread entitled "Science is Contained In, and By, Philosophy". There may be some truth to that if we are defining philosophy as something which embraces rational principles of investigation (which it does), but certainly not if we are defining philosophy the way you seem to be defining it here.
You claim to embrace philosophy as that which is the source of all truth but by your own admission you did not arrive at your "truth" via rational means. There's nothing wrong with that of course, but the reason you are bumping up against people in this thread is because you're continually implying that facts can derive from irrationality. This is almost an antithesis of philosophy.
You really should take Dywyddyr up on his (indirect) challenge to "delineate the steps for another to arrive at the same conclusion". This is what philosophers do.
You can't refute it all these weeks and you can't even get near it, either one, as your post shows, plus, you have nothing on your end to show for God.
Sheer pronouncements just don't cut it and never can.
This is not the first time that "Jan could not answer".