Resurrection Evidence

[muichimotsu]

It matters to me....if you have had a personal encounter with Him in the past and maybe something occurred or you "learned" some things that subsequently made you question your experience.

So, again I present my testimony of a personal encounter with Him...meeting me emotionally, intellectually, existentially, imaginatively, mystically, and if there be any other aspect of the human being.


*I fear you have closed up other aspects of your existence where He may be speaking to you.

One can feel like something special is happening, but our sentiments can betray us (to quote Obi Wan Kenobi's line to Anakin). Having objectivity means considering that your experiences are not absolutely indicative of reality and how it works, because you can subconsciously be insinuating your subjective inferences onto events (thinking a higher power directed things to work out because you "trust" in it)

 

[Tone]

Good old Christian passive aggression, never fails to make you seem like the victim and critics as the bad guy to someone who doesn't recognize the patterns of deflection and otherwise dodging responsibility

Maybe if you asked why I feel that way instead of just assuming, seemingly, that you understand even slightly about my background and reasoning for apostasizing

Why do you feel this way? I am interested in your background...I didn't catch the part where you apostasized.

 

[Tone]

One can feel like something special is happening, but our sentiments can betray us (to quote Obi Wan Kenobi's line to Anakin). Having objectivity means considering that your experiences are not absolutely indicative of reality and how it works, because you can subconsciously be insinuating your subjective inferences onto events (thinking a higher power directed things to work out because you "trust" in it)

This could happen with any new relationship, since we can never know another person exhaustively--this is where trust comes in...you have to trust that the other person is real and that you are really interacting with them.


*We can have true relationships without them being exhaustive.

 

[muichimotsu]

Why do you feel this way? I am interested in your background...I didn't catch the part where you apostasized.

It's a number of factors: raised Christian, mostly Presbyterian (not that that matters, any denomination would've been pretty uncompelling), began questioning in teens and continued that line of thought into Deism and secular Buddhism where I stay today (not Deism, just a stepping stone to unbelief in general) as an apostate

Being on the autism spectrum may have contributed (not sure of any studies that are comprehensive enough to suggest any trends in ASD individuals and religiosity or lack thereof), because I didn't find the idea of some ultimate end compelling to believe, to say nothing of attributing agency to events rather than understanding them as they are without insinuating our human presumptions onto them.

And generally, I find religious and spiritual thinking to be intellectually lazy and dishonest, not wanting to actually get a true answer, but one that's compelling to them and stick with it. Not to say I can't see some metaphorical value in things like the Yule practice my friend suggested I participate in at her party a few days ago at the solstice: burning sprigs of an evergreen with wishes tied onto them for the coming year. But the metaphysics and ethics are the particularly problematic angles

 

[Tone]

It's a number of factors: raised Christian, mostly Presbyterian (not that that matters, any denomination would've been pretty uncompelling), began questioning in teens and continued that line of thought into Deism and secular Buddhism where I stay today (not Deism, just a stepping stone to unbelief in general) as an apostate

Being on the autism spectrum may have contributed (not sure of any studies that are comprehensive enough to suggest any trends in ASD individuals and religiosity or lack thereof), because I didn't find the idea of some ultimate end compelling to believe, to say nothing of attributing agency to events rather than understanding them as they are without insinuating our human presumptions onto them.

And generally, I find religious and spiritual thinking to be intellectually lazy and dishonest, not wanting to actually get a true answer, but one that's compelling to them and stick with it. Not to say I can't see some metaphorical value in things like the Yule practice my friend suggested I participate in at her party a few days ago at the solstice: burning sprigs of an evergreen with wishes tied onto them for the coming year. But the metaphysics and ethics are the particularly problematic angles

Thank you for sharing that about yourself. I personally have traveled (primarily through personal research) pretty much the whole spectrum of Churchianity or Christianity...from Charismatic, to Reformed (Calvinist), to some kind of Gnosticism (though I didn't know it at the time), to Roman Catholic, to Seventh Day Adventism, to the Messianic (closest identification)--Hebrew Roots movement I associate with today. Not to mention the journey of my own personal struggles such as drug use (which made my metaphysical journey necessary), crime, and incarcerations...and through it all my beliefs have been tested, altered, and refined.

It seems to me that receiving intuitive motions can be even more objective (because you have to be open to it) than mere conscious sifting through an endless stream of data...that just makes the individual the gate keeper and that just seems so subjective to me.

 

[muichimotsu]

Thank you for sharing that about yourself. I personally have traveled (primarily through personal research) pretty much the whole spectrum of Churchianity or Christianity...from Charismatic, to Reformed (Calvinist), to some kind of Gnosticism (though I didn't know it at the time), to Roman Catholic, to Seventh Day Adventism, to the Messianic (closest identification)--Hebrew Roots movement I associate with today. Not to mention the journey of my own personal struggles such as drug use (which made my metaphysical journey necessary), crime, and incarcerations...and through it all my beliefs have been tested, altered, and refined.

It seems to me that receiving intuitive motions can be even more objective (because you have to be open to it) than mere conscious sifting through an endless stream of data...that just makes the individual the gate keeper and that just seems so subjective to me.

Not sure how drug addiction requires a metaphysical investigation so much as introspection and considering how to approach such things in a healthy fashion.

Intuition is hardly more objective when the basis of it is relying on your sentiments to be consistently reliable. Just because intuition can be right is not a reason to regard it as objective in the vein of falsifiability and scientific methodology, far more reliable and self correcting as well

Quite the contrary: what you describe with intuition is the individual being the subjective factor in figuring things out, while processing data and seeing how we can strive for more accurate measurement and understanding is seeking objectivity, because it's admitting that you are not the foundation of something being true in your feelings, but whether there is valid inference and consistency in the observations and conclusions made

 

[Tone]

Not sure how drug addiction requires a metaphysical investigation so much as introspection and considering how to approach such things in a healthy fashion.

Have you ever heard about people going on "bad trips" and never coming back?

Intuition is hardly more objective when the basis of it is relying on your sentiments to be consistently reliable. Just because intuition can be right is not a reason to regard it as objective in the vein of falsifiability and scientific methodology, far more reliable and self correcting as well

Who says it originates in the individual...it may arise there, but it conceives in interaction with others and with the world around us...it's relational. What is the idea of "falsifiability" and the the "scientific methodology" if not convention...deciding to agree on certain parameters?

Quite the contrary: what you describe with intuition is the individual being the subjective factor in figuring things out, while processing data and seeing how we can strive for more accurate measurement and understanding is seeking objectivity, because it's admitting that you are not the foundation of something being true in your feelings, but whether there is valid inference and consistency in the observations and conclusions made

I think experiencing intuition relies on the individual being more objective in the sense that one must take steps back and let people or things speak from without...into their understanding. While, the scientific pursuit demands a "figuring things out" from (and for) the individual.

 

[muichimotsu]

Have you ever heard about people going on "bad trips" and never coming back?



Who says it originates in the individual...it may arise there, but it conceives in interaction with others and with the world around us...it's relational. What is the idea of "falsifiability" and the the "scientific methodology" if not convention...deciding to agree on certain parameters?



I think experiencing intuition relies on the individual being more objective in the sense that one must take steps back and let people or things speak from without...into their understanding. While, the scientific pursuit demands a "figuring things out" from (and for) the individual.

People can suffer from drug abuse, that's not the same as the exaggeration that they never come back, which suggests we cannot recover from such things

Intuition begins with particular assumptions, but not all of them are equally valid: assuming that other people exist is one intuition, fine, but you're making the leap to intuition of agency or design as equally valid, when, no, it's not justified by the so called conventions you claim science and falsifiability are. They're far more than just consensus, they've shown themselves to be reliable AND self correcting in assessing the truth of things to the best of our abilities, it's not just conforming, it's seeing that it actually works

You're still inverting your descriptions, the former describing science much more, seeking answers without letting your preconceptions color the assessment, while intuition is figuring things out for/from the individual. Defining it otherwise doesn't make it true, it's trying to frame the discussion in a way that shifts the goalposts in your favor, when you vastly misunderstand science and intuition both

 

[Tone]

People can suffer from drug abuse, that's not the same as the exaggeration that they never come back, which suggests we cannot recover from such things

I'm not speaking of coming back from the abuse itself, but from the places a drug induced psychosis (for example) will take someone.

You're still inverting your descriptions, the former describing science much more, seeking answers without letting your preconceptions color the assessment, while intuition is figuring things out for/from the individual. Defining it otherwise doesn't make it true, it's trying to frame the discussion in a way that shifts the goalposts in your favor, when you vastly misunderstand science and intuition both

Let's just say that I understand science to be dependent on intuition. The scientific methodology is subjective.

 

[Tone]

Intuition begins with particular assumptions, but not all of them are equally valid: assuming that other people exist is one intuition, fine, but you're making the leap to intuition of agency or design as equally valid, when, no, it's not justified by the so called conventions you claim science and falsifiability are. They're far more than just consensus, they've shown themselves to be reliable AND self correcting in assessing the truth of things to the best of our abilities, it's not just conforming, it's seeing that it actually works

I understand that this is how you were taught to believe, however everyone does not have to subscribe to the same worldviews.

 

[Tone]

Let's just say that I understand science to be dependent on intuition. The scientific methodology is subjective.

that just makes the individual the gate keeper and that just seems so subjective to me.

"science is human-objective. I add the human prefix because we only know reality as humans; we cannot conceive of reality beyond the scope of our humanity and its senses. Note that being objective in this sense does not necessarily mean that science will always produce “true” results; only that the results are repeatable. Some people believe that the modern physics of relativity and quantum mechanics added subjectivity into physics because the experiment conducted influences the results of the experiment. For instance, the measured length of some object can vary based on the movement of the observer/subject. However, the same result will obtained by other observer/subject with the same movement conditions with respect to the object. Quantum mechanics has similar issues with respect to the wave or particulate nature of measurements. However, these results are also replicable consistently. An example of the human caveat is present in both of these topics, which depend on numbers we call complex (imaginary) numbers. However, whenever humans make measurements, we require the results to be real numbers. Possibly, other creatures can intuit complex results. Also, quantum mechanics and relativity are considered our best descriptions of nature but they are incompatible at a deep level. Maybe and non-human can understand how they both can be 'true.'"
https://www.quora.com/Is-science-objective-or-subjective

"Science tries it’s hardest to be objective. It has measures and procedures to make sure that whatever it observes or measures looks the same to all who observe or measure it, on the assumption that if everyone sees the same thing then that thing must be “objectively” true.

But it isn’t. Measurements are always a bit off, from one measurer to another. Statistical error exists. An experiment performed few decades later suddenly yields different results than it did when performed previously. A genius comes along proposing his own perception of reality, and suddenly all the previous “laws” and “truths” become wrong and the new perception becomes the “objective truth”. No matter how scientists, being human, resist change - change happens, and change undermines the notion of objectivity.

The only place where science is truly objective is in the minds of it’s many worshippers. Still, in the search for “the true truth”, the objective truth, science didn't do much better than religion did in it’s search for the 'true God'." (Emphasis mine)
https://www.quora.com/Is-science-objective-or-subjective

Those above quotes are useful in explaining what I mean about science not being as objective as many wish it to be.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

There are things you just won't be able to understand until you stand in a different location. You have legs, though, continuing the metaphor, and can move yourself, if you so choose.

I'm other words, just believe and you'll find your doubts are all resolved.
We are in a debating forum, Halbhh, and what you just said sounds like an admission that you have no argument to make. You believe through faith, and faith is unreasonable.

 

[muichimotsu]

I'm not speaking of coming back from the abuse itself, but from the places a drug induced psychosis (for example) will take someone.



Let's just say that I understand science to be dependent on intuition. The scientific methodology is subjective.

Someone can go into various hallucinations, that hardly means it's connected to reality

Science is only dependent on intuition in our initial approximation, we don't lean on it to reach the conclusions based on testing, falsifiability, etc, that uses reasoning to consider that our intuitions are only useful insofar as we have no other initial manner by which to investigate the world, but not that they are absolutely reliable in the conclusions we infer after those observations. I can consistently see something happen with my senses, but I can be mistaken if I attribute a god to it without conclusive evidence, to say nothing of a falsifiable concept of god to begin with

 

[muichimotsu]

"science is human-objective. I add the human prefix because we only know reality as humans; we cannot conceive of reality beyond the scope of our humanity and its senses. Note that being objective in this sense does not necessarily mean that science will always produce “true” results; only that the results are repeatable. Some people believe that the modern physics of relativity and quantum mechanics added subjectivity into physics because the experiment conducted influences the results of the experiment. For instance, the measured length of some object can vary based on the movement of the observer/subject. However, the same result will obtained by other observer/subject with the same movement conditions with respect to the object. Quantum mechanics has similar issues with respect to the wave or particulate nature of measurements. However, these results are also replicable consistently. An example of the human caveat is present in both of these topics, which depend on numbers we call complex (imaginary) numbers. However, whenever humans make measurements, we require the results to be real numbers. Possibly, other creatures can intuit complex results. Also, quantum mechanics and relativity are considered our best descriptions of nature but they are incompatible at a deep level. Maybe and non-human can understand how they both can be 'true.'"
https://www.quora.com/Is-science-objective-or-subjective

"Science tries it’s hardest to be objective. It has measures and procedures to make sure that whatever it observes or measures looks the same to all who observe or measure it, on the assumption that if everyone sees the same thing then that thing must be “objectively” true.

But it isn’t. Measurements are always a bit off, from one measurer to another. Statistical error exists. An experiment performed few decades later suddenly yields different results than it did when performed previously. A genius comes along proposing his own perception of reality, and suddenly all the previous “laws” and “truths” become wrong and the new perception becomes the “objective truth”. No matter how scientists, being human, resist change - change happens, and change undermines the notion of objectivity.

The only place where science is truly objective is in the minds of it’s many worshippers. Still, in the search for “the true truth”, the objective truth, science didn't do much better than religion did in it’s search for the 'true God'." (Emphasis mine)
https://www.quora.com/Is-science-objective-or-subjective

Those above quotes are useful in explaining what I mean about science not being as objective as many wish it to be.

And you're already confusing metaphysical and epistemological objectivity: one is saying some absolute independent existence apart from us we can verify (we can't, there's necessarily a limit in terms of our senses only approximating secondhand through that filter, not the thing in itself) and there's objectivity in being as impartial as possible in approaching the data you have and finding an understanding that is consistent, falsifiable, and testable in some measured sense.

Science doesn't claim objective truth, it claims objectivity in seeking out truth, VERY different representations that color how you approach science as some "atheist religion" or just a methodology to investigate the world's physical laws

There is no true truth, that's a redundancy and impossibility in that we are unable to be absolutely certain, only provisionally so depending on the strength of evidence or necessity for particular axioms.

What you criticize is scientism, not something most people even remotely advocate

 

[muichimotsu]

I understand that this is how you were taught to believe, however everyone does not have to subscribe to the same worldviews.

And your beliefs are not equal to others' just because you hold them with conviction, they stand or fall on the merit of arguments in their favor. You sound suspiciously like a postmodern relativist in saying that every worldview is somehow equal because of how we cannot find universal agreement. Sorry, that doesn't fly because it reduces all discussion to pure opinion, which renders any pursuit of truth meaningless

 

[2PhiloVoid]

If you already are convinced of the truth in some way, then you're question begging that the sources are reliable because of your feelings that they are. How are you to demonstrate they are correct in any significant fashion that isn't incidental? People have vetted your so called sources and they're secondhand at best, to say nothing of having a vested interest in promulgating their story as true because they're already convinced that it is true

~~~~

Faith doesn't work, period, beyond people's subjective inferences of causality to events and whatever supernatural force they attribute as making them occur. Trust is based on reliability, faith is based on sentimentality

~~~~

Did you not read my qualification that absolute justification is the unrealistic part? Are you asserting that justification being uncertain in that it isn't absolute certain means it has to rely on unsubtantiated axioms in some sense? Your whole epistemology seems haphazard in regards to showing anything miraculous in the bible to be defensible as having actually happened

~~~~

Did I say I was free of bias? No, but acknowledging the bias and continuing to utilize it unquestioningly is not the same as considering the bias and looking at alternatives in an objective fashion without being unduly swayed by sentiments

~~~~

Point out where I've remotely insinuated a lack of education entails anything of a lack of reliability to one's claims. You can be educated and still be wrong, I've never said otherwise, even intelligent theologians and apologists can continue to use fallacious argumentation because they're already invested into the worldview's compelling nature and don't want to confront the potential cognitive dissonance that would come about. Intelligence and wisdom are fundamentally different, complementing each other, but favoring one over another in either direction can be dangerous

It seems to me that no matter what I say, according to you, I'm wrong.

 

[Halbhh]

Merely being willing to engage with something does not mean you should be so credulous to take incidental confirmations of some "reliability" as indications of the truth of a model where divine intervention is fundamentally unfalsifiable, since you can just claim demons did it instead if you don't think God really did it, but still believe God does things for the "real" believers

I notice you usually respond as if I'd written different things than I have in these posts.

I say explore and test. Objective stuff. Repeated testing. Comparing.

You talk about credulity. The opposite of what I suggest.

Who's really teaching their beliefs, conclusions in a credulous way here? ...

Often people need to begin to do what they are preaching. What if you got more objective, and stopped assuming you already know what you haven't found out.

 

[Tone]

Someone can go into various hallucinations, that hardly means it's connected to reality

Science is only dependent on intuition in our initial approximation, we don't lean on it to reach the conclusions based on testing, falsifiability, etc, that uses reasoning to consider that our intuitions are only useful insofar as we have no other initial manner by which to investigate the world, but not that they are absolutely reliable in the conclusions we infer after those observations. I can consistently see something happen with my senses, but I can be mistaken if I attribute a god to it without conclusive evidence, to say nothing of a falsifiable concept of god to begin with

Yeah, I would say that imagination plays a very large role in doing science, as well.

 

[Tone]

it reduces all discussion to pure opinion, which renders any pursuit of truth meaningless

So if you admit that science does not grasp objective truth, and you don't believe in true truth, yet, you continue the pursuit of truth (what kind?)--what methods do you use or what motions are you open to?

 

[cvanwey]

It matters to me....if you have had a personal encounter with Him in the past and maybe something occurred or you "learned" some things that subsequently made you question your experience.

God has the ability to make His presence known to anyone, as per the Bible. If God truly wanted me to know He existed, I'm sure He could.

So, again I present my testimony of a personal encounter with Him...meeting me emotionally, intellectually, existentially, imaginatively, mystically, and if there be any other aspect of the human being.

Curious how He seems to immerse you with contact. And yet, He seemed to skip over upon me. We then have to ask ourselves...

- Are you mistaken about 'God' contacting you, or... ?
- Am I mistaken, and God actually does contact me, or maybe... ?
- God purposefully skipped over me?

*I fear you have closed up other aspects of your existence where He may be speaking to you.

Again, as I told @Halbhh , there exists realities in life I cannot reject, regardless of having the right 'mindset'. Hence, as stated above, if God wanted to let me know of His presence, I'm sure He could.

If you are truly concerned, and you truly fear, then maybe start presenting evidence which supports the claim that a man returned from the dead, after being deemed dead for 3 days?