|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jan 31, 2019 16:38:55 GMT
I wanted to start the theme about the limits of believing itself, but instead I'd try to develop it partially. I want to concentrate on not on the whole problem of believing, but of believing a person which might have seen a God.
Ok, first one that I need to say is I think that believing of God (in Christianity mostly, and some others theistic conceptions) is able to get from another person. According to Bible there were some Apostles which have seen Christ, and they shared this view among the ones who didn't. Usually, we're not the ones who've seen God, but we believe that there are people who have. Whether it deals truly with Bible, or not, but I think that it's possible to see God. As long as God is omnipowerful being He's able to show Himself to someone. At least, I'd like to think that.
The second one is a possibility of God to show Himself through another person. If He did it through Christ (in Christianity), would He shown Himself through another person? According to Quran the mortals cannot have seen Allah. But, for circumstances, let's suppose that God may shown through another person. And let's suppose that doing or acting through another person is for the person to see God. Therefore, in case if God would been acting through a person, He had shown Himself to him.
So, we can imagine that there is a person who might have seen a God.
This person tells us "I did see a God".
What questions would you ask this person to check whether or not he had told you the truth? Where are the limits of your believing the person's words?
|
|
|
Post by karl on Feb 10, 2019 11:04:29 GMT
If anyone tells me he/she has seen a God, I'd be curious to know what came out of this alleged encounter, what this divine being stated, if anything, and what psychlogical impact the episode had on the person in question. Beyond that, I'm not really interested.
Similarly, if I hear about telepathy, UFO sightings, speaking to the dead, or whatever in the vast category of the unexplained, I generally react with indifference, but principally remain an agnostic in relation to what I may neither verify, nor falsify. When I have no real way of investigating whether something is true or not, I loose interest and put my focus where it could actually be useful.
Could the psychological impact be a sign of a God? What makes some people to be behave strangely? 4 example, a. (A person knows that if) he acts himself like a person having seen a God b. And talks about this c. (then) He certainly will be shot. But, d. The person does not want to be shot However, if (a&b)vd Logically, it is c So, what can we say about this person? If contradictions push him to something weird, then God barely exists?
Well, the scenario I imagine is one where the person actually believes to have seen God. For if you believe something strongly enough, you will behave as if it's true, even if it's not.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Feb 10, 2019 13:41:18 GMT
Could the psychological impact be a sign of a God? What makes some people to be behave strangely? 4 example, a. (A person knows that if) he acts himself like a person having seen a God b. And talks about this c. (then) He certainly will be shot. But, d. The person does not want to be shot However, if (a&b)vd Logically, it is c So, what can we say about this person? If contradictions push him to something weird, then God barely exists?
Well, the scenario I imagine is one where the person actually believes to have seen God. For if you believe something strongly enough, you will behave as if it's true, even if it's not.
Thank you for your answering. I apologize for a cycle of questions. If you don't mind I ask another one: what do you think about accepting true (something that is true) by consciousness and without it (or unconsciousness)? It's supposed that being unconsciousness we merely get something as true more solid. For example, our commons senses; we don't argue Sun rising every day, but we're not so sure about non-Euclidean geometries (or, at least, non-Euclidean stuff has less probability as the rising Sun). I'd say that many commons things came from my unconsciousness view, than consciousness. So, I might assume that my behaviour is built upon unconsciousness much more than on consciousness. Thereby, if power of my believe base on conscious less than unconscious, then I should try to get some mystical knowledge (intuition, maybe), shouldn't I?
|
|
|
Post by karl on Feb 10, 2019 15:50:28 GMT
Well, the scenario I imagine is one where the person actually believes to have seen God. For if you believe something strongly enough, you will behave as if it's true, even if it's not.
Thank you for your answering. I apologize for a cycle of questions. If you don't mind I ask another one: what do you think about accepting true (something that is true) by consciousness and without it (or unconsciousness)? It's supposed that being unconsciousness we merely get something as true more solid. For example, our commons senses; we don't argue Sun rising every day, but we're not so sure about non-Euclidean geometries (or, at least, non-Euclidean stuff has less probability as the rising Sun). I'd say that many commons things came from my unconsciousness view, than consciousness. So, I might assume that my behaviour is built upon unconsciousness much more than on consciousness. Thereby, if power of my believe base on conscious less than unconscious, then I should try to get some mystical knowledge (intuition, maybe), shouldn't I?
I have no problem with you asking me questions. In fact, unrelated to this topic, there is one question I'd like to ask you. How would you describe the situation right now in Ukraine, and its relation with Russia?
There is communication between our subconsciousness and our consciousness, so when you state that we might believe something because we subconsciously sense that it's true, I assume you're referring to when our subconsciousness provides our consciousness with an intuitive sense. Or, in more mundane terms, when you have a gut feeling about whatever.
Our consciousness is the great clarifier, and what we use to reality test suggestions from our subconsciousness. If we wish for others to believe what we believe, whatever we believe to sense as true must first go through a process of clarification. If we're not even quite sure what it is that we sense to be true, then we also have no proper way to communicate it to someone else. Simply put, this is as far as it gets for religious beliefs. I personally believe in God, but I never try to convince anyone of God's existence. No matter what arguments I might attempt to construct, what it eventually boils down to is that I try to awake within the other person my own intuitive sense of that God exists.
Claiming that the sun will continue to rise is a different matter. The reason why you expect it is due to what's called the induction principle. When the same thing occurs again and again, you will naturally expect it to continue to occur. This is at the core of the scientific method. Keep in mind, however, that even something as trustworthy as expecting the sun to continue to rise, needs clarification. And when it is clarified, one ends up realising that it will only be true for a very long period of time. Five billion years from now, when the sun finally explodes, it's over. In fact, it might happen sooner. In relation to when the Andromeda galaxy collides with the Milky way in 3,75 billion years, someone has calculated that there is a 3% chance that it will cause the sun to disappear from the solar system.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Feb 11, 2019 0:48:53 GMT
Thank you for your answering. I apologize for a cycle of questions. If you don't mind I ask another one: what do you think about accepting true (something that is true) by consciousness and without it (or unconsciousness)? It's supposed that being unconsciousness we merely get something as true more solid. For example, our commons senses; we don't argue Sun rising every day, but we're not so sure about non-Euclidean geometries (or, at least, non-Euclidean stuff has less probability as the rising Sun). I'd say that many commons things came from my unconsciousness view, than consciousness. So, I might assume that my behaviour is built upon unconsciousness much more than on consciousness. Thereby, if power of my believe base on conscious less than unconscious, then I should try to get some mystical knowledge (intuition, maybe), shouldn't I?
I have no problem with you asking me questions. In fact, unrelated to this topic, there is one question I'd like to ask you. How would you describe the situation right now in Ukraine, and its relation with Russia?
There is communication between our subconsciousness and our consciousness, so when you state that we might believe something because we subconsciously sense that it's true, I assume you're referring to when our subconsciousness provides our consciousness with an intuitive sense. Or, in more mundane terms, when you have a gut feeling about whatever.
Our consciousness is the great clarifier, and what we use to reality test suggestions from our subconsciousness. If we wish for others to believe what we believe, whatever we believe to sense as true must first go through a process of clarification. If we're not even quite sure what it is that we sense to be true, then we also have no proper way to communicate it to someone else. Simply put, this is as far as it gets for religious beliefs. I personally believe in God, but I never try to convince anyone of God's existence. No matter what arguments I might attempt to construct, what it eventually boils down to is that I try to awake within the other person my own intuitive sense of that God exists.
Claiming that the sun will continue to rise is a different matter. The reason why you expect it is due to what's called the induction principle. When the same thing occurs again and again, you will naturally expect it to continue to occur. This is at the core of the scientific method. Keep in mind, however, that even something as trustworthy as expecting the sun to continue to rise, needs clarification. And when it is clarified, one ends up realising that it will only be true for a very long period of time. Five billion years from now, when the sun finally explodes, it's over. In fact, it might happen sooner. In relation to when the Andromeda galaxy collides with the Milky way in 3,75 billion years, someone has calculated that there is a 3% chance that it will cause the sun to disappear from the solar system.
Thanks. I think it's good to thank anyone, especially good people. About Russia and Ukraine... Well, I don't think it's possible to describe it correctly even living in Ukraine watching news. I have not much time just right now to answer (I'll try to do the complete answer sooner), and the answer isn't about to be short. Briefly, - and considering that this's gonna be just mine point of view - it's not a good idea of any kind of breaking relationships, because they have been building for a very long time. So, there are lots of traditions, many similarities, etc. The scandal that arose recently was built mainly by two reasons: a. Cultural: language and religion primary. These barriers don't seem to be very argumentatively, because there are so many stakes about languages and religions all over the world, so that reason is rather poor then representative and strong. The same for the other cultural misunderstandings. b. Political. And this reason is the most strongly argument. Putin's Russia has expropriated two regions from Ukraine, and doing the war actions for about five years from the territory of Donbas (one of the local region). Those actions weren't in no way correct in a international view. And Putin's Russia seems not to be change in near time. A war in Donbass, constantly appearing against laws (some kind of prohibition of productions transition, barring the transportation of gas, and increasing prices on it, etc.), raising of cultural inappropriate relations (just spoiling of relations), and many similar processes. As for me, most of such processes are rather artificial. So, I see the problem of escalating conflict in just political sense. Surely, there are many other aspects that I can't raise just now. And I'll try to answer on the rest of the comment later.
|
|