Is faith a reliable path to knowledge?

Discussion in 'Comparative Religion' started by James R, Jul 23, 2015.

  1. river Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,528

    Yet despite no empirical evidence ( physical evidence ) , the spirit world exists .

    Under hypnosis , past lives become into the fore.

    And NDE becomes real from those who do it and those who experience the patients retelling of their experience .

    And actually the empirical evidence can be argued from the point of the patient knowing more than they should .

    For example while under anesthesia patients , floating above themselves hear conversations taking place in the operation room .
     
    Last edited: Jun 7, 2017
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,839
    That's easy, if you have imagination. I can imagine myself sitting across the room, looking at myself.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. river Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,528
    NDE is not something to make fun of . For patients who experience out of body experience , and DR's who also experience this , it is a very real experience .
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Michael 345 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,518
    A TV program I have mentioned before

    QI

    had a small segment in the program where they mentioned people who had been interviewed about their Out of Body Experience

    Unbeknown to said persons items had been placed on top of cupboards

    Nobody could name such items

    Funny that

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  8. river Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,528
    TV British game show

    Not surprised

    Cupboards were not important .
     
  9. Michael 345 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,518
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirit_world_(Spiritualism)

    In this extract below from the above link I learnt

    Also, the spirit world is "The Home of the Soul" as described by C. W. Leadbeater (Theosophist) suggesting that for a living human to experience the spirit world is a blissful, meaningful and life changing experience.[13]

    Who would have thought being dead would be life changing experience

    Oh wait it says for a living human to experience

    Somebody set me straight please

    Do the living die - go to the spirit world - then come back (The Returned Dead?)?

    Or do living people go to the spirit world while still alive? (Die without dying dead?)

    So many questions

    So much Woo Woo

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  10. river Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,528
    Both
     
  11. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,839
    I am serious. You have to watch this little presentation. Trust me, you will like it. It has nothing to do with spirituality, but you will be amazed, honestly. he does talk about imagination.
    https://www.ted.com/talks/roger_antonsen_math_is_the_hidden_secret_to_understanding_the_world

    Please let me know what you think.
     
  12. river Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,528
    Good video

    Changing ones Perspective , is an exerise of imagination and then understanding .

    But what are you getting at in relation to NDE AND AFTERLIFE EXPERIENCES . ?
     
  13. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,839
    I'm not sure, to be frank.
    I probably intuited that you might find some insight in the matter which I am totally unfamiliar with.
    I've heard some stories but never paid much attention, I must confess.
    But I am glad you found it interesting.
     
    river likes this.
  14. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,942
    1. Do you admit that your belief in God is based, at least in part, on faith?
    2. What percentage of your belief in God would you put down to evidence, and how much to faith? Is there anything else I've overlooked that leads to your knowledge of God's existence?
    3. Apart from your belief in God, is there any other area of your life where you rely on faith to make decisions or choices, or to believe in something? Please give an example or two if your answer is "yes". And keep in mind my definition of faith - belief even in the absence of evidence.

    1. My faith, if I have any at all, is in science. If science cannot eventually prove that G-d exists, or if he has somehow rigged it so that this is not possible, then it's not my fault that I do not have faith in him, is it? Superstition is what requires faith, or in the case of religion, in the absence of any actual knowledge, faith is equivalent to fear (of G-d), actually. I have faith that evolution will deal harshly with those who fear knowledge, or the quest to know the unknown. Same kind of faith, isn't it, really?

    2. The evidence (that something like G-d exists) is all around us, 24/7, if you are not too jaded to recognize it. Every living thing on this planet is based on the same basic structural component of DNA. The particular path that evolution has taken for our species to dominate this planet is also evidence in favor of the idea that there might be a greater purpose, but it is equally likely that there is not, particularly if we are ultimately unable to use science to get the hell off this rock before G-d incinerates it. Where would be the purpose in that? If you believe that praying will somehow prevent it, you are mistaken. Science just might. Re-read my answer to #1.

    3. No. I don't need the reward of an afterlife to behave and live in a moral manner or make the right choices, and only ever needed about one page of religious instruction to supplement the idea. Like everyone else on this rock, I pay attention to what matters most in terms of my own survival, and the survival of those I choose to love. Because G-d made us that way. If it's a mistake, it isn't mine, either

    I also don't worship idols (including religion, religious leaders, religious artifacts, religious scipture, or the equivalent relics of science) nor do I have any pre-conceived notions about where G-d sits upon his throne. The Earth does not have to the the center of the universe. It does not have to be flat. It does not have to be carried around on the backs of giant tortoises. I don't believe in any current ideas about cosmology that would include G-d being responsible for inflation, the Big, Bang the centerpiece of time, or anything else for which there is not direct observational evidence. And I don't believe in quantum creationism or the idea that G-d needs to be the ultimate observer, any more than I believe in the same idea for Santa Clause. I don't believe in heresy. It is not even possible in my adopted religious tradition for anyone to be a heretic, or for that matter, a blasphemer, because the closest translation we have for G-d in our tradition is: "Our Lord".

    I believe in the theory of evolution and the fossil record, and that the Earth is much older than other religious traditions who have adopted scripture from my own faith including the book of Genesis and turned it into an idol, or worse, 'science', like quantum creationism, for example. Oh, and I don't like frauds, which would include quantum creationists posing as scientists, or as moderators on science threads.

    And finally, I believe my job here is finished.

    Crystal?
     
    Last edited: Jun 27, 2017
  15. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,799
    No it isn't.
    Can something be counted as evidence if it's equally likely that the opposite is true?
     
    danshawen likes this.
  16. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,942
    Fair enough. You and I both see the same results of the same process. I see the result as a miracle, all by itself, with or without a deity. If you do not, I understand. Your point of view is as valid as mine.

    We could both be equal amounts of the chemicals that make us both up, too, and will eventually be once again. Is that a miracle? Not so much.

    Does the process of life from when it began on Earth to the time it gets incinerated by a red giant mean anything at all if none of it eventually survives? Not so much. It is the state in between these equilibrium states, if anything, that is miraculous.
     
  17. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,942
    Most definitely. It literally cannot be otherwise. You cannot know anything unless something else is unknown. Even religion teaches this.
     
  18. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,799
    I have evidence someone committed murder. But it's equally likely they didn't murder anyone. Is it still evidence?
     
    danshawen likes this.
  19. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,799
    If both points of view are equally valid, then it doesn't count as evidence. See above.
     
  20. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,942
    Died of natural causes a millisecond before the bullet actually struck them. May not hold up too well in a court of law, of course, but is it possible? Yes. Likely? Of course not.

    What does your life timeline look like in relation to the age of the universe? About the same as the aforementioned scenario. Likely? No. Possible? Evidently.

    James was right about one thing. These kinds of discussions can be fun, too.
     
    Last edited: Jun 28, 2017
  21. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,839
    In proper context, I agree.

    But in case of serious argument, such as in a court of Law or in science, I prefer to consult the dictionary for it's exact definition.
     
    danshawen likes this.
  22. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,839
    Take the expression " In God we trust". Really? Trust to do what?
     
  23. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,942
    Yawn. The "truth" is only a value, not an absolute, even in mathematics. We've been through this a dozen times in the science threads.

    The example is a good one. You might know that there was a shot fired, even that it penetrated a vital organ, but this does not prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that the person that was shot wasn't subject to death by some other fatal condition before the bullet hit. Would I argue this in court? Not without an autopsy to corroborate the evidence.

    For those who think this example is far fetched, my Exhibit B would be my client Dr. Kevorkian, who was simply trying to make good on his contract with a terminally ill patient who sadly misused one of the good doctor's euthenasia apparatus, and needed assistance to carry out the procedure to its intended conclusion.
     
    Write4U likes this.

Share This Page