In my mind, if you can prove the supposed 1/3 part of the trinity (if you believe in that), you can be well on your way to prove that God exists.

Well, according to the Bible, this Holy Spirit is with all of us right now...gosh it's hard to be serious....but, I am.

This Holy Spirit is supposedly the voice of God. So, if we could hear/see/touch (examine) this (somtimes referred to as Holy Ghost), we could at least prove that there is another dimension to our reality....one that a creator (God) could very well possibly exist in (or perhaps in all).

And maybe, the Bible would have some evidence. Now this would not prove God's existence if the Holy Spirit exists, but at least we would have a plausible hypothesis to explore, so we would not be unreasonable doing so.

If the Holy Spirit exists, surely it can be proven.

It should be easier to prove it, than a god because the Bible promises us a way to communicate with God.

So, can the Holy Spirit/Ghost be proven?

If not, how can you believe what you think it is saying to you? How can you tell the difference between its mumblings in your mind from your own conscience/feelings/ID

I seriously doubt that you can prove the divine presence exists. So if it cannot be proven, how can we/you reasonably say that it exists?

If you say that it does, than are there other ghosts who walk among us?

Apparently, Jesus banished some demons that possessed men...

You can't say that it is so because the Bible (or whatever text) says it's so, because the text is supposed to be the Living Word, born of revelation from the Holy Spirit/divine presence, written by men.

The Bible, and all other religious documents for that matter, are hinged on the assumption that the Holy Spirit or some divine presence that exists was responsible for giving mankind a revelation about their respective gods.

If after considering this notion of the existence of ghosts you still believe, please be reasonable...

i have heard the voice of the holy spirit, and yes sometimes i've questioned whether i'm hearing me talking to myself or him, but he's said some rather preposterous things to me that i would never even consider saying to myself, and then going on to explain them to me through my experiences in life. i have also had interactions with other spirits, ghosts if you will. those experiences range from telepathic communications to a wide variety of sensations, to telekinesis, and these weren't the ghosts of physically dead people either.

i have heard the voice of the holy spirit, and yes sometimes i've questioned whether i'm hearing me talking to myself or him, but he's said some rather preposterous things to me that i would never even consider saying to myself, and then going on to explain them to me through my experiences in life. i have also had interactions with other spirits, ghosts if you will. those experiences range from telepathic communications to a wide variety of sensations, to telekinesis, and these weren't the ghosts of physically dead people either.

And you believe this in the face of the hundreds of perfectly logical explanations of your experiences, based upon scientific study of human behavior, psychology, and physiology? It is more reasonable than the sound evidence and hundreds of past cases of the mind being influenced by emotions and/or chemicals...some phenomenon natural, and some abnormal?

The mind is a powerful thing, and is a known liar....how can you trust your intuition that what you experienced was genuinely paranormal, when science has an easy, factually based, conclusion for you?

And you believe this in the face of the hundreds of perfectly logical explanations of your experiences, based upon scientific study of human behavior, psychology, and physiology? It is more reasonable than the sound evidence and hundreds of past cases of the mind being influenced by emotions and/or chemicals...some phenomenon natural, and some abnormal?

The mind is a powerful thing, and is a known liar....how can you trust your intuition that what you experienced was genuinely paranormal, when science has an easy, factually based, conclusion for you?

Because I have corroboration in my environment. There is manifestation that provides me with irrefutable evidence. I was drawn into this interaction for a reason, by people who knew what they were doing and understood why more than I did, and still to this day, they know more about what happened to me, and why it did, more than I do. It has to do with revelations prophecy, and I am actually supplying evidence through this interaction that will be observed.

Jay,

Lori has convinced herself that she is in communication with a god but has never been able to show how that might be true or show how to distinguish such a claim from psychotic delusion.

Um, communication isn't "hearing speech", necessarily.

The thing is, there are sounds, and you hear them.
"It" can sound sometimes like there's a "voice" (I've noted elsewhere that I once "suffered" from a condition that had me hearing "talking" birds) - some of the birdlife around here is quite "talkative", but they use bird-language; any discernment on my behalf of some imagined attempt by birds to speak "to me" in my native language, English, must be some kind of abberation, logically. At least, that's what occured to me at the time.

Music can be "talkative" (cantabile, e molto cantabile), When I listen to instrumental stuff (piano, orchestral, rock-opera) I can hear it talking, so to, er, speak.

same question, different format. Believe in the bible and your mindless. The only holy trinity I ever knew was Best, Charlton & Law (Manchester United forwards in 60s/70s).

Jay,

Lori has convinced herself that she is in communication with a god but has never been able to show how that might be true or show how to distinguish such a claim from psychotic delusion.

why should i have to? it's supposed to be personal. he's not renting out a lecture hall. it's not televised. it's a personal interaction between me and him. if you want to have a personal interaction with him yourself, then do so, and then you'll know for yourself. it's supposed to be this way. you're not supposed to get proof from me through my experience, you're supposed to get proof from him through your own experience. then you would know like i know, and no one could ever take that away from you. if it were any other way then you would be no better than the spoon-fed drones that are sitting in the pews every sunday morning and wednesday night. and before you even go there, the ONLY thing keeping you from this experience is you.

Because I have corroboration in my environment. There is manifestation that provides me with irrefutable evidence. I was drawn into this interaction for a reason, by people who knew what they were doing and understood why more than I did, and still to this day, they know more about what happened to me, and why it did, more than I do. It has to do with revelations prophecy, and I am actually supplying evidence through this interaction that will be observed.

I think it's down to your awful diet, Go eat some large, juicy steaks.

why should i have to? it's supposed to be personal. he's not renting out a lecture hall. it's not televised. it's a personal interaction between me and him. if you want to have a personal interaction with him yourself, then do so, and then you'll know for yourself. it's supposed to be this way. you're not supposed to get proof from me through my experience, you're supposed to get proof from him through your own experience. then you would know like i know, and no one could ever take that away from you. if it were any other way then you would be no better than the spoon-fed drones that are sitting in the pews every sunday morning and wednesday night. and before you even go there, the ONLY thing keeping you from this experience is you.

So, does the same go for the guy who claims he is Napoleon ? He's as convinced of his experience as you ar of yours. How does one distinguish betwen you ?

I think it's down to your awful diet, Go eat some large, juicy steaks.

you wish...you know, i actually like the way meat tastes, i just don't like how it's made. if i ate a steak now, my system would revolt.

So, does the same go for the guy who claims he is Napoleon ? He's as convinced of his experience as you ar of yours. How does one distinguish betwen you ?

the beauty of it is...that you don't have to. YOU DON'T HAVE TO TAKE MY WORD FOR IT. i don't want you to. god doesn't want you to. it wouldn't be prudent to. FOCUS PEOPLE. quit expecting others to do this work for you. here's the secret...if you want to know, then all you have to do is want to know, and then god will take care of the rest. i'd rather god take care of it, it's his job, and i'm not qualified. i mean, i'll be honest. if you want to know anything about my experiences, or what i think about them, i will gladly share that with you to the best of my ability. but i'm not out here to convince and i'm not out here to argue. that's because i know from my experience that the only reason people don't know is because they don't really want to know.

So, does the same go for the guy who claims he is Napoleon ? He's as convinced of his experience as you ar of yours. How does one distinguish betwen you ?

also...how does this guy explain his longevity? or is he saying he's reincarnated and WAS napoleon? and if that's the case, then who's to say he's not? i mean, if anyone was to know such a thing, it would be him right? :shrug: i've gotten messages that give me the impression that reincarnation happens. i mean, i can't really say for sure, but it doesn't seem unrealistic to me. i do know for sure that god has led me to identify with people who have lived in the past, and i'm not the only one.

the beauty of it is...that you don't have to. YOU DON'T HAVE TO TAKE MY WORD FOR IT. i don't want you to. god doesn't want you to. it wouldn't be prudent to. FOCUS PEOPLE. quit expecting others to do this work for you. here's the secret...if you want to know, then all you have to do is want to know, and then god will take care of the rest. i'd rather god take care of it, it's his job, and i'm not qualified. i mean, i'll be honest. if you want to know anything about my experiences, or what i think about them, i will gladly share that with you to the best of my ability. but i'm not out here to convince and i'm not out here to argue. that's because i know from my experience that the only reason people don't know is because they don't really want to know.

Something tells me your post is self-referential.

also...how does this guy explain his longevity? or is he saying he's reincarnated and WAS napoleon? and if that's the case, then who's to say he's not? i mean, if anyone was to know such a thing, it would be him right? :shrug: i've gotten messages that give me the impression that reincarnation happens. i mean, i can't really say for sure, but it doesn't seem unrealistic to me. i do know for sure that god has led me to identify with people who have lived in the past, and i'm not the only one.

That is a very weak argument. You are, in effect, saying that we can believe anything. You are right. Most people do. Reason is a casualty along the way.

Something tells me your post is self-referential.

well i'm basing what i'm saying upon my own experience. but that's also how the bible explains it. and it's also the process i've witnessed in other people, and have heard them testify to. and plus, it just makes good common sense.

That is a very weak argument. You are, in effect, saying that we can believe anything. You are right. Most people do. Reason is a casualty along the way.

no...well, that's not what i do. what i do is base my beliefs on my experience and remain open-minded regarding anything else. i mean you may have good reasons not to believe someone sometimes, like you know they're a liar. but i don't think that cynicism or your own paradigms are good reasons, you know?

Lori,

why should i have to?You don’t. But if you want others to believe you or if you would like to appear credible, then you would have to make an effort. If those things aren’t important to you then that’s fine, just as long as you realize that others will likely see you as a religious nutter.

it's supposed to be personal. he's not renting out a lecture hall. it's not televised. it's a personal interaction between me and him. if you want to have a personal interaction with him yourself, then do so, and then you'll know for yourself. it's supposed to be this way. you're not supposed to get proof from me through my experience, you're supposed to get proof from him through your own experience. then you would know like i know, and no one could ever take that away from you. if it were any other way then you would be no better than the spoon-fed drones that are sitting in the pews every sunday morning and wednesday night. and before you even go there, the ONLY thing keeping you from this experience is you.No, Lori, it is not up to me. Without a credible independent method of verification I would not able to tell whether the claimed communication is real or a mental delusion. And we know delusions are very real and very common yet we have absolutely zero evidence to indicate that gods might exist.

no...well, that's not what i do. what i do is base my beliefs on my experience and remain open-minded regarding anything else. i mean you may have good reasons not to believe someone sometimes, like you know they're a liar. but i don't think that cynicism or your own paradigms are good reasons, you know?

Well let's agree that your experience is personal.

...your experience is personal.Absolutely. All my experiences are, and I assume this is also the case for all the other "experiencers" I encounter, (but this can only ever be a hypothesis).

There is never going to be any possibility of "verification", through some "independent" means, that others do in fact, experience things the way I do, or see or hear things the way I see or hear them. I think Descartes figured something out about all this a while back.

Absolutely. All my experiences are, and I assume this is also the case for all the other "experiencers" I encounter, (but this can only ever be a hypothesis).

There is never going to be any possibility of "verification", through some "independent" means, that others do in fact, experience things the way I do, or see or hear things the way I see or hear them. I think Descartes figured something out about all this a while back.

Descartes, practising his method of doubt arrived at his Cogito. From that point on, he argued for the existence of god using a variation of an old argument, which ha long since been refuted. He believed we have a priori knowledge. This was refuted by Locke and Hume both of whom were empiricists.

Some experiences can be shown to be shared and not, therefore, purely subjective. To take a simple example, I would expect you to agree with me that it would be stupid to put our hands into the fire. If we did so,we could compare the burns we received and you could se that your were like mine and vice versa.

If you want to argue that our perceptions are no more than some kind of reflection of reality, that is a different matter.

I think it'd be a lot easier if i understood what you were saying. :confused:

Some experiences can be shown to be shared and not, therefore, purely subjective. To take a simple example, I would expect you to agree with me that it would be stupid to put our hands into the fire.I didn't say I think Rene had it all worked out. He obviously made a few connections that don't stand up (to 20th century analysis, anyway).
Most of us believe things like "fire burns you", or "if you're thirsty, you need water", and so on. We're confronted with evidence that we, and other lifeforms, are affected the same ways by certain things in the world. We assign cause and effect in much the same ways, and we compare notes too.

However, I very much doubt that I could hope to explain what my current "mental" environment is "like", or the "things" in it that I "hear and see" with my eyes shut and my ears stopped up. Our internal experience is the clincher, to that statement I made about "independent verification", there is no independent agent or referee (maybe that's why we invent an external "God").
I think it'd be a lot easier if i understood what you were saying.Try looking up terms like "theory of mind", "subjective experience", and so on. When I come across a discussion where people are chucking words around I haven't seen before, I go and look them up (wikipedia can be a good starting point). There are plenty of online dictionaries and encyclopedias.

Lori,

You don’t. But if you want others to believe you or if you would like to appear credible, then you would have to make an effort. If those things aren’t important to you then that’s fine, just as long as you realize that others will likely see you as a religious nutter.

No, Lori, it is not up to me. Without a credible independent method of verification I would not able to tell whether the claimed communication is real or a mental delusion. And we know delusions are very real and very common yet we have absolutely zero evidence to indicate that gods might exist.

Chris,

With all due respect, don't waste your breathe. You're forming an opinion of me based upon nothing but what you want to believe. And I've told you the truth...this is how it works. Why in the world would you want to take my, or anyone else's word for such a seemingly important thing? Especially if you're just going to disregard what I say? I'm telling you the truth Chris...it is up to you. YOU. Do you think that God is not capable of proving Himself to you? No, you're not that stupid. The truth is, that you simply don't want to know.

Well let's agree that your experience is personal.

WELL DUH!!! What else would it be???? :confused:

I think it'd be a lot easier if i understood what you were saying. :confused:

It would be a lot easier if you were educated to an appropiate level. Is it my fault you don't understand my response. Remember it was you who dropped the name Descartes; it was my mistake to assume you knew what you were talking about

WELL DUH!!! What else would it be???? :confused:

Something you regard as being appropriate for others. Have you forgotten you offered to share your knowledge with others which presupposes that you have objective as opposed to subjective knowledge.

I didn't say I think Rene had it all worked out. He obviously made a few connections that don't stand up (to 20th century analysis, anyway).
Most of us believe things like "fire burns you", or "if you're thirsty, you need water", and so on. We're confronted with evidence that we, and other lifeforms, are affected the same ways by certain things in the world. We assign cause and effect in much the same ways, and we compare notes too.

However, I very much doubt that I could hope to explain what my current "mental" environment is "like", or the "things" in it that I "hear and see" with my eyes shut and my ears stopped up. Our internal experience is the clincher, to that statement I made about "independent verification", there is no independent agent or referee (maybe that's why we invent an external "God").
Try looking up terms like "theory of mind", "subjective experience", and so on. When I come across a discussion where people are chucking words around I haven't seen before, I go and look them up (wikipedia can be a good starting point). There are plenty of online dictionaries and encyclopedias.


I said SOME experiences can be shared and you are telling me you agree.

Something you regard as being appropriate for others. Have you forgotten you offered to share your knowledge with others which presupposes that you have objective as opposed to subjective knowledge.

i can share what my personal experience has been. it's called testimony and witnessing. you don't have to believe it, but i'm not sure why you wouldn't. why would you assume i'm a liar? do i seem to you to have an agenda? :confused: