Is the fundamental gap between creationists and non-creationists...

[pitabread]

... a disagreement over basic reality?

I find a lot of discussions with creationists seem to be boil down to disagreement over the nature of reality. And I'm not sure that there is a way to bridge such disagreement.

 

[SelfSim]

Is the fundamental gap between creationists and non-creationists... a disagreement over basic reality?

Of course it is!

The only two known methods for deciding what's real and what isn't, are:

i) the scientific (objective) method and;
ii) by way of beliefs.

There is no useful purpose in trying to 'bridge' those methods.
In fact, the usefulness comes from realising that they are completely distinct methods.

 

[pescador]

Of course it is!

The only two known methods for deciding what's real and what isn't, are:

i) the scientific (objective) method and;
ii) by way of beliefs.

There is no useful purpose in trying to 'bridge' those methods.
In fact, the usefulness comes from realising that they are completely distinct methods.

There is a third -- and the most important -- method: the guidance of the Holy Spirit. That is different from belief, which is a mental exercise.

 

[pitabread]

There is a third -- and the most important -- method: the guidance of the Holy Spirit. That is different from belief, which is a mental exercise.

What you are suggesting involves belief in the Holy Spirit.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

... a disagreement over basic reality?

I find a lot of discussions with creationists seem to be boil down to disagreement over the nature of reality. And I'm not sure that there is a way to bridge such disagreement.

Yes! But that is also true for most human disagreement....

Epistemology actually more than "reality" seeing how our reality is generally filtered and constructed.

 

[renniks]

... a disagreement over basic reality?

I find a lot of discussions with creationists seem to be boil down to disagreement over the nature of reality. And I'm not sure that there is a way to bridge such disagreement.

Of course. If you believe all of history is solely blind causation by nature you can never allow for even the smallest miracle. We are not bound by such a narrow view of reality.

 

[SelfSim]

Of course. If you believe all of history is solely blind causation by nature you can never allow for even the smallest miracle. We are not bound by such a narrow view of reality.

Ok then .. so let's just not believe: 'all of history is solely blind causation by nature'.
Problem solved!

 

[dlamberth]

We are not bound by such a narrow view of reality.

Reality from a spiritual perspective is relative. I'm quite certain that by comparison your view of reality is bound to a very narrow view compared to the reality I live in.

 

[SelfSim]

Reality from a spiritual perspective is relative.

Relative only to the belief in 'a spiritual perspective', that is.

I'm quite certain that by comparison your view of reality is bound to a very narrow view compared to the reality I live in.

.. and your certainty there is bound to the frame of a 'spiritual perspective', which only you can define what you mean by that.
Is that 'broad'?

 

[pescador]

What you are suggesting involves belief in the Holy Spirit.

No, that isn't the case. "Belief" is the wrong word. Is it correct, for example, for me to say that I believe that I am alive? No, I know that I am alive. I know that I am guided by the Holy Spirit into all truth.

Jesus said (John 16:13), "When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own, but will speak whatever he hears, and he will declare to you the things that are to come."

Unless you believe that Jesus wasn't telling the truth...

 

[SelfSim]

No, that isn't the case. "Belief" is the wrong word. Is it correct, for example, for me to say that I believe that I am alive? No, I know that I am alive. I know that I am guided by the Holy Spirit into all truth.

I have a useful definition of 'belief' which can be used for clarfying what I mean by belief:
'A belief is that which I hold to be true out of preference, that does not follow from objective tests and is not beholden to the rules of logic."

Jesus said (John 16:13), "When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own, but will speak whatever he hears, and he will declare to you the things that are to come."

Unless you believe that Jesus wasn't telling the truth...

How do I distinguish this 'speaking someone', from someone who is just impersonating this spirit and is just retelling someone else's truth?

 

[dlamberth]

Relative only to the belief in 'a spiritual perspective', that is.

I know your not going to understand, but its' a conscious experience sort of thing.

.. and your certainty there is bound to the frame of a 'spiritual perspective', which only you can define what you mean by that.
Is that 'broad'?

The thing is, I'm not alone.

 

[dlamberth]

How do I distinguish this 'speaking someone', from someone who is just impersonating this spirit and is just retelling someone else's truth?

Perhaps, it's not for you to distinguish the experiences of another person.

 

[SelfSim]

I know your not going to understand, but its' a conscious experience sort of thing.

I'm human, so I have a chance .. Don't give up on me yet!

The thing is, I'm not alone.

I don't see how that necessarily means that you represent a non-narrow perspective. A better stance is surely to make the attempt of addressing (and representing) both 'narrow' and 'broad' viewpoints?

 

[SelfSim]

Perhaps, it's not for you to distinguish the experiences of another person.

Well if I don't do that, I'd have no sense of existing as an individual .. and therefore, no sense whatsoever of any reality. Reality wouldn't matter and thus the entire issue just fades into the continuum. That's a pretty impractical thing to do .. even for spiritualists (who distinguish 'spirits'?)!

 

[dlamberth]

I don't see how that necessarily means that you represent a non-narrow perspective. A better stance is surely to make the attempt of addressing (and representing) both 'narrow' and 'broad' viewpoints?

That's all true.
What I was addressing was someone saying another had a narrow view and their view was broader. My point is that it's a relative thing. I'm not saying one perspective is better than another. Clearly that's not the case, as you have so rightly highlighted.

 

[SelfSim]

That's all true.
What I was addressing was someone saying another had a narrow view and their view was broader. My point is that it's a relative thing. I'm not saying one perspective is better than another. Clearly that's not the case, as you have so rightly highlighted.

Cool.
Can you think of a broader way (ie: stance and method) of distinguishing reality than what I suggested in post #2, items (i) and (ii), then?

 

[dlamberth]

Well if I don't do that, I'd have no sense of existing as an individual .. and therefore, no sense whatsoever of any reality. Reality wouldn't matter and thus the entire issue just fades into the continuum. That's a pretty impractical thing to do .. even for spiritualists (who distinguish 'spirits'?)!

No living human being, because we are bound to this physical world, can exist without a sense of reality around them. But our realities can be a bit different at some level. It's a consciousnesses thing. Mystics, for example, can be aware of things you or I might not be opened up to.

 

[dlamberth]

Cool.
Can you think of a broader way (ie: stance and method) of distinguishing reality than what I suggested in post #2, items (i) and (ii), then?

The options are too narrow for me to answer.

 

[pescador]

I have a useful definition of 'belief' which can be used for clarfying what I mean by belief:
'A belief is that which I hold to be true out of preference, that does not follow from objective tests and is not beholden to the rules of logic."
How do I distinguish this 'speaking someone', from someone who is just impersonating this spirit and is just retelling someone else's truth?

Ask God! Hebrews 11:1 (NET 2.1), "Now faith is being sure of what we hope for, being convinced of what we do not see."

Believe me, if it's the Holy Spirit "telling" you the truth you will know it.