toldailytopic: Stephen Hawking says Heaven is a 'fairy story'

[Silent Hunter]

Morality, apart from a supernatural standard, is all natural and therefore relative to all else natural. No made up standard is better than another because there is no ultimate standard against which to measure "better."

. . . unless you can produce the "supernatural standard" of morality you so clearly assert (that is without one shred of evidence) then one can only assume the source of the "biblical" moral standard originates from the same source as all other moral standards . . . humans (so as not to appear gender biased by saying "man" or "men").

. . . there is no need to comment on the rest of the post . . . it's specious and has the tone of nothing more than a long desperate ad hominem (in other words . . . it's a lot like all of your posts to those with which you disagree if you'll forgive my honest opinion).

:e4e:

 

[rexlunae]

No, it doesn't. Morality, apart from a supernatural standard, is all natural and therefore relative to all else natural. No made up standard is better than another because there is no ultimate standard against which to measure "better."

I'm curious, what is it that makes the supernatural standard less arbitrary than the natural ones? It seems that you've merely appointed one standard over all others, by nothing more than your personal arbitrary decision.

 

[Skavau]

No, it doesn't. Morality, apart from a supernatural standard, is all natural and therefore relative to all else natural. No made up standard is better than another because there is no ultimate standard against which to measure "better."

Perhaps you misunderstand. Nihilists reject morality as a concept. Some go so far as to present a yearning for a post-apocalyptic society (or lack of).

Stupidly, I'll try another analogy here (you seem to completely miss the point of the use of analogies, but it's the best I have for trying to trick you into actually considering my points). There is no accounting for taste. One person enjoys a cup of black coffee made strong with medium-roast, freshly ground beans from Ethiopia, whereas another person would say "Blech" while sipping a cup of cafe au lait made with very-dark-roast Colombian beans (Starbucks, for example). Can we say that the African coffee drinker has better taste than the one drinking coffee so burnt that it needs milk in quantity? Only if we personally prefer the African beans roasted medium. Another person's taste can only be measured according to our own - it's all relative to what we personally like and dislike.

Sure.

But that's taste in drink. Not morality. Your taste in drink affects no-one. What you think you ought or ought not do within the context and consideration of others does not.

You actually used the word, "analogy," but from your comments, you clearly don't get the purpose of the use of analogy - or you are being purposely obtuse in making yourself absolutely certain that you cannot understand my pov. It reminds me of the girls in high school who wouldn't take the higher science and math courses because they didn't want anyone knowing that they were that smart It's sad really.

I understand the point of view, and I was criticising the analogy as if it was an incident that happened. I understand you were trying to make the frivolous point that people have different standards. It doesn't change who was right in that circumstance though.

... because there's only one sort of civilization that's worthy of the title - the one that you like?

Did I say that? I simply said 'civilization' not the one I approve of. Every civilization no matter how depraved or inconsiderate of the individual still requires behavioural standards. If you reject that (even as a hypothetical atheist) then you reject all civilization.

Quite the string of value judgments there, and nothing else. Do you like your coffee black or with milk or cream?

If you must know I don't even drink coffee. I drink tea. In any case, I'll continue to make more and more value judgements and I'll do it merrily so.

Wow. You are a very intolerant individual, aren't you?

What on earth does making value judgements on the characters in an analogy presented by you have to do with my tolerance (or lack of)? I am extremely intolerant towards certain things and much more to other things. I have no idea what this has to do with anything.

See? You are telling us your opinion and saying that it's your opinion.

Yeah. So?

Guess who's saying it? Me. What a fatuous thing to say.

More intolerance. What right have you to impose yourself on others to claim that they ought not impose themselves on others?

Does this even require answering? Have you ever been the victim of crime? Have you ever been required or felt obliged to report a crime you have witnessed or suspect could have/be happening? Do you have any consideration whatsoever for the liberty that you benefit from every single day guided by the ideal of personal autonomy?

What right does Traditio and other pseudo-theocrats have to impose themselves on others?

I mean, it's your own standard to not impose yourself on others, so why do you try to impose your own personal standard on others? It's hypocritical.

Where did I say I was going to impose my standard on others? It is effectively impossible by definition for me to impose my standards on others if I don't believe in the imposition of others personal liberty. I didn't mention this above but it perhaps need mentioning. I only told you what I believe. I did not preface it with a purpose to begin a violent crusade against tyrants.

So what do you think? Shall we all bow to your superior reason and experience? What gives you the right? How dare you judge others based on your personal standard. You are seriously intolerant

When did I say that anyone should bow to my "superior reason and experience" (your words). I simply said that I will judge events and people based on what I consider (and I'll add) and understand to be important for civilization. I did not say that all or anyone should bow to my judgement, merely that I make my observations by it. I am sorry and quite alarmed that I am having to spell this out.

So you don't advocate that laws change based on your opinion of morality?

By your logic, anyone who advocates the changing of legislation on anything ever is attempting to impose themselves on others. I advocate and support some law changes based in part on my moral understanding. I don't however support all of my opinions on morality to be codified into law.

You don't support the laws against murder and rape? What would you do if someone murdered your child or your mother? Would you demand justice? Yes you would, and that is how your opinion concerning morality does indeed amount to your forcing your morals on others.

Only someone completely contemptuous of human rights or completely ignorant of it would deride and use legislation designed to protect liberty and life as examples of oppression. It should not be regarded as a right of others to oppress or murder who they like.

To what end? What do you really have here? A few short decades and its all over - forever and nothing with which to look back on it all. Why bother? What's the point?

I like life. Remember I am not anti-humanity. Remember I have relationships and interests in this world that I will not forsake based on some depraved nihilism. You believe in an eternal life. I do not. Our priorities are different.

No really. I want to know what you think the point is, and why anyone ought to bother, but don't write your answer, please, until you've read the part below about the brain-computer and its constructs.

Too late.

Not insulting to anyone but yourself since it's presumptive because it couldn't be further from the truth. Christ made it clear, and Paul and the other epistle-writers expounded on it, that how we live here in this plain affects deeply our life in eternity.

So all of your interaction here is simply a means to an end. Everything you do and the reasons you do it for is nothing more than acting in your own position in the afterlife.

Earth is more than a waiting room - it's more of a staging ground where all is prepared diligently for the action to come.

That still sounds bleak to me.

If you don't think that Hawkings doesn't believe us to be merely organic machines programmed by genetics (arrived at through evolutionary processes) and past input - that our "feelings" are just programmed responses to stimuli, then you are going to have to come up with some evidence (scoffing doesn't count as evidence, btw).

I don't really care what Hawkings thinks here, to be honest. I am not a cognitive scientist. I cannot (and neither can you) fill in the unknown gaps of our mind and I won't presume to do so.

See above (since you don't like the word "supra" apparently ) But frankly, I'm surprised at your ignorance of this recent scientific endeavor.

What I took issue was with your conspiracy theory saying that all scientists are willfully ignoring and oppressing to keep out supernatural origins for our conscience. That was just nonsense. I am completely aware that scientists are attempting to discover the workings of our mind and I have no problem with it, whatever they conclude.

I've left out two things because they honestly make you look ridiculous - one the stubborn clinging to an absolute "no-one" when you should have just admitted you were being hyperbolic (meaning rather, "hardly anyone, and those are lunatics imo").

Is this referring to the overpopulation thing? Do you have any modern-day advocates of mass murder to reduce the population of earth? By that I also mean serious advocates and not authors creating a fictional dystopia, but people who seriously contend it.

The other a problem with definitions (existential nihilism is a philosophy, so how in the world can it not be concerned with philosophy?)

It is the rejection of philosophy. It holds that life has no meaning.

One last question for you. You seem to be at odds with the dichotomy between the natural and supernatural - that if something doesn't come from the supernatural (outside the natural, material world), then it must come from the natural. What other options are there? If we reject the existence of the supernatural (based only on faith, since negatives cannot be logically proved), then what's left is the natural/material. What seems wrong about that statement to you?

The supernatural if demonstrated to exist would become entirely natural. It would become a known idea. Regarding the use of 'supernatural' as an explanation for what we don't understand is self-defeating. It answers absolutely nothing. Replacing one unknown with another unknown.

 

[Silent Hunter]

Perhaps you misunderstand. Nihilists reject morality as a concept. Some go so far as to present a yearning for a post-apocalyptic society (or lack of).

Sure.

But that's taste in drink. Not morality. Your taste in drink affects no-one. What you think you ought or ought not do within the context and consideration of others does not.

I understand the point of view, and I was criticising the analogy as if it was an incident that happened. I understand you were trying to make the frivolous point that people have different standards. It doesn't change who was right in that circumstance though.

Did I say that? I simply said 'civilization' not the one I approve of. Every civilization no matter how depraved or inconsiderate of the individual still requires behavioural standards. If you reject that (even as a hypothetical atheist) then you reject all civilization.

If you must know I don't even drink coffee. I drink tea. In any case, I'll continue to make more and more value judgements and I'll do it merrily so.

What on earth does making value judgements on the characters in an analogy presented by you have to do with my tolerance (or lack of)? I am extremely intolerant towards certain things and much more to other things. I have no idea what this has to do with anything.

Yeah. So?

Guess who's saying it? Me. What a fatuous thing to say.

Does this even require answering? Have you ever been the victim of crime? Have you ever been required or felt obliged to report a crime you have witnessed or suspect could have/be happening? Do you have any consideration whatsoever for the liberty that you benefit from every single day guided by the ideal of personal autonomy?

What right does Traditio and other pseudo-theocrats have to impose themselves on others?

Where did I say I was going to impose my standard on others? It is effectively impossible by definition for me to impose my standards on others if I don't believe in the imposition of others personal liberty. I didn't mention this above but it perhaps need mentioning. I only told you what I believe. I did not preface it with a purpose to begin a violent crusade against tyrants.

When did I say that anyone should bow to my "superior reason and experience" (your words). I simply said that I will judge events and people based on what I consider (and I'll add) and understand to be important for civilization. I did not say that all or anyone should bow to my judgement, merely that I make my observations by it. I am sorry and quite alarmed that I am having to spell this out.

By your logic, anyone who advocates the changing of legislation on anything ever is attempting to impose themselves on others. I advocate and support some law changes based in part on my moral understanding. I don't however support all of my opinions on morality to be codified into law.

Only someone completely contemptuous of human rights or completely ignorant of it would deride and use legislation designed to protect liberty and life as examples of oppression. It should not be regarded as a right of others to oppress or murder who they like.

I like life. Remember I am not anti-humanity. Remember I have relationships and interests in this world that I will not forsake based on some depraved nihilism. You believe in an eternal life. I do not. Our priorities are different.

Too late.

So all of your interaction here is simply a means to an end. Everything you do and the reasons you do it for is nothing more than acting in your own position in the afterlife.

That still sounds bleak to me.

I don't really care what Hawkings thinks here, to be honest. I am not a cognitive scientist. I cannot (and neither can you) fill in the unknown gaps of our mind and I won't presume to do so.

What I took issue was with your conspiracy theory saying that all scientists are willfully ignoring and oppressing to keep out supernatural origins for our conscience. That was just nonsense. I am completely aware that scientists are attempting to discover the workings of our mind and I have no problem with it, whatever they conclude.

Is this referring to the overpopulation thing? Do you have any modern-day advocates of mass murder to reduce the population of earth? By that I also mean serious advocates and not authors creating a fictional dystopia, but people who seriously contend it.

It is the rejection of philosophy. It holds that life has no meaning.

The supernatural if demonstrated to exist would become entirely natural. It would become a known idea. Regarding the use of 'supernatural' as an explanation for what we don't understand is self-defeating. It answers absolutely nothing. Replacing one unknown with another unknown.

. . . good enough to be posted a second (and a third) time . . .

:thumb:

 

[badp]

I think Hawking's ALS is making him hallucinate

 

[nicholsmom]

I'm curious, what is it that makes the supernatural standard less arbitrary than the natural ones? It seems that you've merely appointed one standard over all others, by nothing more than your personal arbitrary decision.

I agree that it would look like that to one who rejects the supernatural, but if you try to look at it from the perspective of one who acknowledges the supernatural plain and its influence on the natural/material plain, then you will begin to get a glimmer of what we're about with an external moral standard.

Consider: if there is a supernatural plain of existence - a spirit world - that interacts with the natural world to provide purpose and meaning, love and joy, peace and inspiration, then it makes perfect sense that from that spirit world comes the ultimate standard of morality. God's character permeates that spirit world and overlaps into the natural/material world in ways that anyone can discern if he is willing to accept the possibility of the supernatural. Any desire for justice flows from that aspect of God; any desire for mercy from the mercy of God; any appreciation of beauty from the creativity of God. The person of God is so big, He's hard to hide for the one who knows the attributes of God. Love, peace, joy, justice, mercy, creativity, fun, adventure... "All good things come from above..." says the Bible, which only means that all good things have their source in God.

The plains of existence share space, and God's character, the source of morality, leaks into our hearts and minds where we can mull it over and know good from evil and choose.

 

[nicholsmom]

Perhaps you misunderstand. Nihilists reject morality as a concept. Some go so far as to present a yearning for a post-apocalyptic society (or lack of).

:doh: Rejection of morality is a moral standard. It's just a very permissive one. What makes your moral standard any less arbitrary?

But that's taste in drink. Not morality. Your taste in drink affects no-one. What you think you ought or ought not do within the context and consideration of others does not.

Shall I give you the definition of analogy?
Taste is relative to the taster. Morality, absent a higher authority, is relative to the moral agent. There is no measuring stick for either morality nor taste, absent God, and I'm thinking that he likes the medium-roast African coffee with cream

I understand the point of view, and I was criticising the analogy as if it was an incident that happened. I understand you were trying to make the frivolous point that people have different standards. It doesn't change who was right in that circumstance though.

But it does. You only picked the more altruistic of the two because your taste runs toward the altruistic. Another man might prefer the egoistic track, so to him, the altruist was in the wrong. It's all a matter of taste unless there is something intrinsically wrong with selfishness. And if there is something intrinsically wrong with selfishness, we must ask ourselves why. I would say that selfishness is intrinsically wrong because it is contrary to the nature of God. What reason would you give?

Have you ever been the victim of crime? Have you ever been required or felt obliged to report a crime you have witnessed or suspect could have/be happening? Do you have any consideration whatsoever for the liberty that you benefit from every single day guided by the ideal of personal autonomy?

You have forgotten, I think, that we aren't talking about my sense of morality (which is all about the character of God), but rather about the immeasurability of morality derived from any source but God.

By your logic, anyone who advocates the changing of legislation on anything ever is attempting to impose themselves on others.

They are. What else is the purpose of discussing morality if not to gain a society that suits our tastes?

I advocate and support some law changes based in part on my moral understanding. I don't however support all of my opinions on morality to be codified into law.

I'll bet that you do more than I do. I'm a conservative nut-job - I like for the government to keep it's hands off as much as possible to obtain a generally safe society (which is to my liking).

Only someone completely contemptuous of human rights or completely ignorant of it would deride and use legislation designed to protect liberty and life as examples of oppression. It should not be regarded as a right of others to oppress or murder who they like.

But they are oppression. Any suppression of the rights of a person is oppression. We do it, eyes-wide-open, to do the best job we can to establish a society that is to our liking. Every government oppresses its citizens in ways designed to obtain the sort of society that that government likes.

I like life. Remember I am not anti-humanity. Remember I have relationships and interests in this world that I will not forsake based on some depraved nihilism. You believe in an eternal life. I do not. Our priorities are different.

Your liking of life is only a matter of personal taste if there is no God and no afterlife. Why should you prefer 80 years to 30 if there is no remembering? What difference does it make in a practical sense? After your 80 years or so are up, what have you got? The same thing as you would have if you ended it at 30. Nothing. Absolute nothing. So in saying that you like life for 80 years more than for 30, you are really saying that you prefer the nothing to the nothing. :rip:

So all of your interaction here is simply a means to an end. Everything you do and the reasons you do it for is nothing more than acting in your own position in the afterlife.

Padding my treasure :greedy: God is the source of all things good. I do the good that I do because He does it through me for the benefit of others as well as for me. The things I do here on Earth are very important to the One who matters most. That I am reaping eternal reward for yielding to His guidance only speaks to God's grace - His desire to give me delight.

That still sounds bleak to me.

There is no accounting for taste. I love living for God. I get to be the wife of a generous and affectionate husband, the mother of 6 very different kids - each one a delight, the daughter to hopeful and helpful parents, the sister to two Christians and an atheist, the friend of some really inspiring women. I also get to argue with people who are logically challenged here on TOL I find that mostly fun but at least I'm pretty good at it, and when I lose all patience, there are so many others here to take my place, that I have no worries that the chronically illogical will be taken to task for their failures All-in-all a great life full of fun and adventure and romance and mystery.

What I took issue was with your conspiracy theory saying that all scientists are willfully ignoring and oppressing to keep out supernatural origins for our conscience.

It isn't so much conspiracy as desperation. You don't have to read very far into their writings (the quote that started this one is an example) before you find their desire to eliminate God from the equation - to negate the need for a creator or the supernatural.

Is this referring to the overpopulation thing? Do you have any modern-day advocates of mass murder to reduce the population of earth? By that I also mean serious advocates and not authors creating a fictional dystopia, but people who seriously contend it.

Honestly, why don't you just admit that you were being hyperbolic and drop it?

It is the rejection of philosophy. It holds that life has no meaning.

The notion that life has no meaning is the basis of this philosophy - ask any philosopher. It's a whole branch of philosophy all by itself. Check it out.

Are you following any of my links, btw?

The supernatural if demonstrated to exist would become entirely natural.

:doh: Good job butchering the English language.

su·per·nat·u·ral –adjective 1. of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal.

It would become a known idea.

It is a known idea - it's just not measurable by natural/material means, because it's ... "above or beyond what is natural" and "unexplainable by natural law or phenomena" - it's supernatural.

Regarding the use of 'supernatural' as an explanation for what we don't understand is self-defeating. It answers absolutely nothing. Replacing one unknown with another unknown.

Only if the supernatural is unknowable, which it isn't. Your trouble is that you deny the supernatural and so have blinded yourself to its influences.

It is plain logic that if something is not explainable by natural/materialistic means, it might well be because that something isn't natural/material

 

[rexlunae]

I agree that it would look like that to one who rejects the supernatural, but if you try to look at it from the perspective of one who acknowledges the supernatural plain and its influence on the natural/material plain, then you will begin to get a glimmer of what we're about with an external moral standard.

Well, I'm not speaking from that perspective. I'm saying, even given the supernatural, how do you justify objectively valuing a supernatural standard of morality over any of the natural ones.

Consider: if there is a supernatural plain of existence - a spirit world - that interacts with the natural world to provide purpose and meaning, love and joy, peace and inspiration, then it makes perfect sense that from that spirit world comes the ultimate standard of morality. God's character permeates that spirit world and overlaps into the natural/material world in ways that anyone can discern if he is willing to accept the possibility of the supernatural. Any desire for justice flows from that aspect of God; any desire for mercy from the mercy of God; any appreciation of beauty from the creativity of God. The person of God is so big, He's hard to hide for the one who knows the attributes of God. Love, peace, joy, justice, mercy, creativity, fun, adventure... "All good things come from above..." says the Bible, which only means that all good things have their source in God.

So you deny the possibility of purpose from within the natural world at all, and assert that all purpose is supernatural in origin? What is it about the supernatural that enables purpose that the natural cannot do?

The plains of existence share space, and God's character, the source of morality, leaks into our hearts and minds where we can mull it over and know good from evil and choose.

Personally, I think that people perceive a need for a truly objective, unarguable morality, and purpose, and therefore they invent it against the evidence. But I think the perception of the need is actually itself errant, and actually destructive, because it forces us to try to ignore the native moral capacity that most of us have in favor of a borrowed external dictatorship of morality. A magical solution for an imaginary problem.

 

[Skavau]

Rejection of morality is a moral standard. It's just a very permissive one. What makes your moral standard any less arbitrary?

It is the complete opposite. If I reject empiricism then is that an empirical standard?

Taste is relative to the taster. Morality, absent a higher authority, is relative to the moral agent.

This is entirely true even if a higher authority exists. Morality would still be the opinion of the higher authority.

But it does. You only picked the more altruistic of the two because your taste runs toward the altruistic.

If I recall, there was no altruism in that analogy. Just someone who was acting obnoxious to someone else's property by spitting on it because they preferred not to spit on their own property. There would be no problem in the analogy at all the spitter had permission to spit on his friends property. There would then be consent and the moral dilemma would be resolved.

I would say that selfishness is intrinsically wrong because it is contrary to the nature of God. What reason would you give?

Selfishness is only wrong if at the expense, manipulation or rights of others. It only becomes a moral issue when it involves other people. Your answer here is so empty that it is so that if God was to decree that selfishness was a virtue you would have commit a face heel turn and support the value of selfishness.

You have forgotten, I think, that we aren't talking about my sense of morality (which is all about the character of God), but rather about the immeasurability of morality derived from any source but God.

I said it to point out the veiled disregard for civilization that is grounded in it even if it is coming from a hypothetical pseudo-nihilist social darwinist perspective that I don't even hold.

They are. What else is the purpose of discussing morality if not to gain a society that suits our tastes?

Why the term 'suits our tastes'? Many things in society do not suit my taste but they also do not harm me and therefore I do not wish them legislated against. It is theocrats and fascists that attempt to engineer society to suit their tastes. It is those that wish homosexuality criminalised because it personally upsets them (or God).

I'll bet that you do more than I do. I'm a conservative nut-job - I like for the government to keep it's hands off as much as possible to obtain a generally safe society (which is to my liking).

Socially or economically?

But they are oppression. Any suppression of the rights of a person is oppression. We do it, eyes-wide-open, to do the best job we can to establish a society that is to our liking. Every government oppresses its citizens in ways designed to obtain the sort of society that that government likes.

If you think that it is a right to murder people and rape people then I simply can't help you. I'm glad to see that at in your terminology though that you are for the suppression of those rights.

Your liking of life is only a matter of personal taste if there is no God and no afterlife.

So what? I have no problem with putting it as subjectively as that. I've said I like and enjoy life. If that is my personal taste then so be it. Are you trying to convince me to commit suicide or something?

Why should you prefer 80 years to 30 if there is no remembering?

Because I like living.

What difference does it make in a practical sense? After your 80 years or so are up, what have you got? The same thing as you would have if you ended it at 30. Nothing. Absolute nothing. So in saying that you like life for 80 years more than for 30, you are really saying that you prefer the nothing to the nothing.

Yeah, if you value life in death. This is like arguing that one should just read the plot synopsis of a movie rather than watch it because either way you'll know what happened. Completely pathetic argument.

Padding my treasure God is the source of all things good. I do the good that I do because He does it through me for the benefit of others as well as for me. The things I do here on Earth are very important to the One who matters most. That I am reaping eternal reward for yielding to His guidance only speaks to God's grace - His desire to give me delight.

So I was right then. Your interaction here is just to please God. You are only concerned with this life ending to start an eternal reward. Pseudo-morality based on self-interest if you don't mind me being so blunt (you certainly haven't given me the benefit of the doubt).

There is no accounting for taste. I love living for God.

Right then. So all your whining and complaining about me enjoying life in absence of an afterlife can be dispensed with, if you'd please. It is to your taste (and thus you subjectify the process of being saved which is hilariously ironic in hindsight) to live for a God and it is to my taste to live for life. If you're willing to simply say that then I'll say it on return.

I get to be the wife of a generous and affectionate husband, the mother of 6 very different kids - each one a delight, the daughter to hopeful and helpful parents, the sister to two Christians and an atheist, the friend of some really inspiring women. I also get to argue with people who are logically challenged here on TOL I find that mostly fun but at least I'm pretty good at it, and when I lose all patience, there are so many others here to take my place, that I have no worries that the chronically illogical will be taken to task for their failures All-in-all a great life full of fun and adventure and romance and mystery.

I'm glad to see that at last, you think life has value. If you really believed it to be as bleak as you had suggested earlier then you wouldn't be describing it in such a manner.

It isn't so much conspiracy as desperation. You don't have to read very far into their writings (the quote that started this one is an example) before you find their desire to eliminate God from the equation - to negate the need for a creator or the supernatural.

You proposed a conspiracy theory. I wouldn't worry about it. It is common practice amongst most intelligent designers, creationists and cdesign propotentists to suggest a mass conspiracy across many fields to staltify and oppress suggestions of a creator. The reality of course is that the suggestion of a 'God' into our conscience is simply undemonstrable. It cannot be regarded as meaningful until it can be tested.

Honestly, why don't you just admit that you were being hyperbolic and drop it?

You bought it up! I asked you earlier whether or not you knew of any actual people arguing for mass murder to quell overpopulation. You responded solely by referencing a work of fiction and Mein Kampf, which is almost 80 years old now and universally loathed and condemned by the entire world.

The notion that life has no meaning is the basis of this philosophy - ask any philosopher. It's a whole branch of philosophy all by itself. Check it out.

It still the complete rejection of meaning and purpose. It necessarily rejects all other philosophical and ethical theories. It is if anything only de facto philosophy.

Are you following any of my links, btw?

Some.

Good job butchering the English language.

su·per·nat·u·ral
–adjective
1. of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal.

Yes. Excuse me. What would happen then if we were suddenly able to explain a supernatural phenomena?

Only if the supernatural is unknowable, which it isn't. Your trouble is that you deny the supernatural and so have blinded yourself to its influences.

The supernatural is regarded to be unknowable through any relevant means. I know there are theists thatg argue that it can be known through religious experience, or through some relationship with God but these are not scientific methods. They are not approachable to anyone who has not experienced it. The supernatural is objectively unknowable.

 

[DavisBJ]

(God) gave Israel a theocratic government in which God's Law was very strict to eliminate any wicked influence brought from Egypt and to engender righteous living; and kept them separate from the wicked nations which had overrun Abraham's land. He was building the nest - the exact sort of society needed - for the Messiah's coming. He had certain requirements for that nest and it took hundreds of years to build it through many adversities and trials, but build it He did.

Let me make sure I understand. The Hebrews, upon coming out of captivity had internalized some evils from the Egyptian society they had been enslaved under. In many ways their morals were not much above those of the heathens surrounding them. God saw that to cleanse his people and lead them to his righteousness, it would not be an overnight thing, but a purification over many generations.

So to do this right from the first He specified the nitty-gritty of what they could do and what they could not do – as you say, “God’s Law was very strict”. I understand some transgressions for things that might seem trivial today required the death penalty. What fabrics they could wear, foods that could be eaten, work on days of rest – these were rules God felt necessary to commit to writing in the Law, and demanded obedience to.

A this time a degree of savagery was found in many of the contemporary cultures, including child sacrifice. It might be safe to think that the Hebrews, starting as a just-freed, and therefore a still rather savage nation themselves were inclined towards ruthless suppression of foes. In inching the Hebrews towards love and kindness, God elected not only to overlook much of the way they conducted war, but He left them no choice. He instructed the Hebrews that not only were they to eliminate those who opposed them, but make darn sure the kids get slaughtered too. Amazing that kindness towards innocent children is, under God’s rule, evil in itself.

I guess I would not have thought that micromanaging the rules of the Hebrew lives as to diet and work and clothes and details of sacrifices and so on, yet not only allowing the more horrendous acts of war to be committed, but in fact demanding them, was the way to lead a nation to a “Christian” mindset.

 

[nicholsmom]

Let me make sure I understand. The Hebrews, upon coming out of captivity had internalized some evils from the Egyptian society they had been enslaved under. In many ways their morals were not much above those of the heathens surrounding them. God saw that to cleanse his people and lead them to his righteousness, it would not be an overnight thing, but a purification over many generations.

So to do this right from the first He specified the nitty-gritty of what they could do and what they could not do – as you say, “God’s Law was very strict”. I understand some transgressions for things that might seem trivial today required the death penalty. What fabrics they could wear, foods that could be eaten, work on days of rest – these were rules God felt necessary to commit to writing in the Law, and demanded obedience to.

Right. And I would add a very thoughtful response, which I do appreciate :e4e:

One detail though: the laws concerning fabrics, foods, feasts, and the like were specific to a people who were set apart. This nation was to be very different from others, and God wanted that to be clear from just looking at them - in what they wore (fringes), how they ate, and how they worshiped. Some of the restrictions were more symbolic than visual - the admonition to wear fabrics that weren't from mixed sources symbolized their separation from the traditions and ways of the nations around them - they were to be holy and pure, not mixing foreign lifestyles with their own. It was very important for them to be different in the way that God had defined for them so that they would not be tempted to take bad habits from foreign nations - so important, that the penalty for doing so was death (that only goes to emphasize the importance of the principle).

At this time a degree of savagery was found in many of the contemporary cultures, including child sacrifice.

This wasn't just savagery; it wasn't just killing children - it was worship of the demon, Mollech, which was a foreign depravity that God certainly didn't want the Hebrews to pick up.

It might be safe to think that the Hebrews, starting as a just-freed, and therefore a still rather savage nation themselves were inclined towards ruthless suppression of foes.

A plain reading of the text would indicate otherwise. Have a look at Numbers 13:1-14:4. What a bunch of pansies :shut:

In inching the Hebrews towards love and kindness,

That isn't what He was doing at all. He wanted to inch them toward faith in Him (because He fed them and kept their clothes and shoes from wearing out and did many miracles in the wilderness) and thereby obedience to His commandments and thereby prosperity and security. God had a plan; He was building a foundation for the coming of the Christ. Any plan, to succeed, requires obedience to the plan. Consider building a house; it's the same sort of thing, but of eternal importance.

So because your premises were pretty far off, the rest of this argument won't work.

God elected not only to overlook much of the way they conducted war, but He left them no choice. He instructed the Hebrews that not only were they to eliminate those who opposed them, but make darn sure the kids get slaughtered too.

I guess I would not have thought that micromanaging the rules of the Hebrew lives as to diet and work and clothes and details of sacrifices and so on, yet not only allowing the more horrendous acts of war to be committed, but in fact demanding them, was the way to lead a nation to a “Christian” mindset.

Nice try though, and well considered, if off-base.

 

[nicholsmom]

Well, I'm not speaking from that perspective. I'm saying, even given the supernatural, how do you justify objectively valuing a supernatural standard of morality over any of the natural ones.

For one reason above others: because it is objective and every morality that can be affected by natural beings is necessarily subjective. The only way that we can have an objective standard is if we can have one that is unaffected by the subjects to which it applies. Personal preference can't win the day that way.

So you deny the possibility of purpose from within the natural world at all, and assert that all purpose is supernatural in origin? What is it about the supernatural that enables purpose that the natural cannot do?

This assertion of mine is derived from the work of neuro-scientists that shows that all emotions, and consciousness itself are merely programmed responses to stimuli. If this is the case (which it must be if evolution, unguided by any supernatural force, is the method by which we have thoughts at all), then any purpose derived from the human mind is only a construct - a programmed response to stimuli. It is a meaningless purpose but it could, I suppose, be called a purpose of sorts. For real purpose (one that isn't just programmed response to stimuli), we must look for a supernatural creator who had purpose in creating us.

Personally, I think that people perceive a need for a truly objective, unarguable morality, and purpose, and therefore they invent it against the evidence. But I think the perception of the need is actually itself errant, and actually destructive, because it forces us to try to ignore the native moral capacity that most of us have in favor of a borrowed external dictatorship of morality. A magical solution for an imaginary problem.

So you don't see any purpose for finding meaning in life beyond a programmed response to stimuli? Why do you think we would even want such a thing? Do you think it's an error in our evolutionary background? I mean, it's an age-old question that is the entire basis of philosophy. It is the reason that the works of Plato and Aristotle were preserved - it is important to people to contemplate such things. Are we all broken from the start to want to find meaning in life?

 

[DavisBJ]

One detail though: the laws concerning fabrics, foods, feasts, and the like were specific to a people who were set apart. This nation was to be very different from others, and God wanted that to be clear from just looking at them - in what they wore (fringes), how they ate, and how they worshiped. Some of the restrictions were more symbolic than visual - the admonition to wear fabrics that weren't from mixed sources symbolized their separation from the traditions and ways of the nations around them - they were to be holy and pure, not mixing foreign lifestyles with their own. It was very important for them to be different in the way that God had defined for them so that they would not be tempted to take bad habits from foreign nations - so important, that the penalty for doing so was death (that only goes to emphasize the importance of the principle).

I understand what you explain. At the very heart of this whole effort I am bothered. Is the freedom for an adult to look at competing theologies, and to make the choice that he sincerely feels is the right one – is that freedom an important thing?

That isn't what He was doing at all. He wanted to inch them toward faith in Him (because He fed them and kept their clothes and shoes from wearing out and did many miracles in the wilderness) and thereby obedience to His commandments and thereby prosperity and security. God had a plan; He was building a foundation for the coming of the Christ. Any plan, to succeed, requires obedience to the plan. Consider building a house; it's the same sort of thing, but of eternal importance. … So because your premises were pretty far off, the rest of this argument won't work.

You dismiss my issue because you dislike the particular way I phrased it. If needed, I can rephrase the core of it using your descriptors of what God was trying to do. But then, is it or is it not true that God, in “building a foundation for the coming of the Christ”, was not only willing to permit the Hebrew warriors to kill enemy infants (as perhaps they might have been inclined to do anyway), but removed the choice and mandated the child slaughter?

As you say, this infanticide is an early step in God’s way to “inch them toward faith in Him”. If infanticide is a valid tool when God orders it, then would you be obedient if you felt you were ordered to slaughter kids?

 

[nicholsmom]

It is the complete opposite. If I reject empiricism then is that an empirical standard?

Yes. Are you the one who called himself a scientist, or was that Davis? I can't remember. Regardless, you are aware, I assume that there is no such thing as "cold?"

It still the complete rejection of meaning and purpose. It necessarily rejects all other philosophical and ethical theories. It is if anything only de facto philosophy.

You need to quit digging when you find yourself in a hole.

This is entirely true even if a higher authority exists. Morality would still be the opinion of the higher authority.

Right. I worded that wrong, sorry about that. The higher authority would have to be one transcendent to nature - supernatural, and therefore unaffected by opinions of the material/natural beings. That way it is an objective standard. (please don't split the argument up here - I've tried to keep it all together. The argument concerning the possibility of God changing His mind concerning morality comes later :e4e:

If I recall, there was no altruism in that analogy.

Altruism: unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others

Selfishness is only wrong if at the expense, manipulation or rights of others. It only becomes a moral issue when it involves other people.

This only speaks again to your proclivity for altruism.

Your answer here is so empty that it is so that if God was to decree that selfishness was a virtue you would have commit a face heel turn and support the value of selfishness.

See? Here is the argument I mentioned above. I have responded to this right here in the thread, but to another poster. Here it is (I do apologize for my misspelling of "plane" in this):

Consider: if there is a supernatural plain of existence - a spirit world - that interacts with the natural world to provide purpose and meaning, love and joy, peace and inspiration, then it makes perfect sense that from that spirit world comes the ultimate standard of morality. God's character permeates that spirit world and overlaps into the natural/material world in ways that anyone can discern if he is willing to accept the possibility of the supernatural. Any desire for justice flows from that aspect of God; any desire for mercy from the mercy of God; any appreciation of beauty from the creativity of God. The person of God is so big, He's hard to hide for the one who knows the attributes of God. Love, peace, joy, justice, mercy, creativity, fun, adventure... "All good things come from above..." says the Bible, which only means that all good things have their source in God. The plains of existence share space, and God's character, the source of morality, leaks into our hearts and minds where we can mull it over and know good from evil and choose.

It is a very important doctrine of Christianity that God is immutable - that His character does not change. And you can see very clearly why when you think through morality for any time at all. It is why God insists throughout the Bible that He does not change - to give us security in that fact. God is the rock upon which the wise man can build his house without worry of shifting.

Why the term 'suits our tastes'? Many things in society do not suit my taste but they also do not harm me and therefore I do not wish them legislated against.

This only means that freedom suits your taste more than totalitarianism :idunno: Still about personal taste, though. It is a taste that most of mankind seem to share - the taste for freedom even at the expense of perfection. We like freedom - it suits our taste.

Socially or economically?

I made it clear in my response what I meant. (You could even follow the quote links back to the original, if you would just leave the numbers on the opening quote tag. Please take a moment to learn this skill to make conversations easier and more trackable).

If you think that it is a right to murder people and rape people then I simply can't help you. I'm glad to see that at in your terminology though that you are for the suppression of those rights.

Sorry about that - meant "freedom" rather than "right." :e4e:

So what? I have no problem with putting it as subjectively as that. I've said I like and enjoy life. If that is my personal taste then so be it. Are you trying to convince me to commit suicide or something?

Or something :think: Not suicide.

Because I like living.

Yeah, if you value life in death. This is like arguing that one should just read the plot synopsis of a movie rather than watch it because either way you'll know what happened. Completely pathetic argument.

Nice analogy Unfortunately it won't work because it presumes that following the reading or viewing, we can consider that which we have read or viewed. Not the case with life and death. 70 years from now, in all likelihood, you will be dead. Whether you die tomorrow or in 70 years, you will have nothing at the end of 70 years - nothing with which to remember, to consider, to regret or to be proud of lain: Nothing. 70 more years or 70 more minutes will not make any difference 70 years and a day from now - not to you if you go to oblivion.

So I was right then. Your interaction here is just to please God. You are only concerned with this life ending to start an eternal reward. Pseudo-morality based on self-interest if you don't mind me being so blunt (you certainly haven't given me the benefit of the doubt).

And I was beginning to hope that you would actually try to understand what I post. What a waste. :mmph:

You proposed a conspiracy theory. I wouldn't worry about it.

You read into my post what wasn't there. I am getting more and more certain that you intend to be a troll.

You bought it up! :blabla: You responded solely by referencing a work of fiction and Mein Kampf, which is almost 80 years old now and universally loathed and condemned by the entire world.

Defending hyperbole with hyperbole? Way to dig that hole deeper.

Yes. Excuse me. What would happen then if we were suddenly able to explain a supernatural phenomena?

We can :idea: :banana: Isn't that just cool? Well, at least to some degree, but the supernatural must be explained supernaturally. By definition, the supernatural is beyond nature, and therefore beyond natural measures or explanations.

Concerning definions:

The supernatural is regarded to be unknowable through any relevant means.

That isn't what the definition says :nono: Look again - use the arrow link at the top of this post to find it.

I know there are theists thatg argue that it can be known through religious experience, or through some relationship with God but these are not scientific methods.

That's why they are called supernatural :doh:

They are not approachable to anyone who has not experienced it. The supernatural is objectively unknowable.

No, it is materialistically immeasurable.

An analogy: you fall in love :straight: By your actions and your words others might guess that you are in love, but can they know? Not on your life. They can look at the evidence and make a judgment call. The only one for whom that love is evidence all by itself is you.
Faith is empirical - it should suit your philosophy nicely

 

[nicholsmom]

I understand what you explain. At the very heart of this whole effort I am bothered. Is the freedom for an adult to look at competing theologies, and to make the choice that he sincerely feels is the right one – is that freedom an important thing?

Yes. For awhile. One day every knee will bow to the One who is obviously "all that" but for now, God deems it important to allow us this sort of freedom.
Let me ask you a question: if I consider carefully the making of a pair of wings and follow all that I sincerely believe about aerodynamics, if I make those wings and jump from a cliff (sincerely believing that they will make me fly), will I wind up at the bottom broken and dead or will my sincerity give me flight? Am I not responsible for my decisions, however sincerely made?

You dismiss my issue because you dislike the particular way I phrased it. If needed, I can rephrase the core of it using your descriptors of what God was trying to do. But then, is it or is it not true that God, in “building a foundation for the coming of the Christ”, was not only willing to permit the Hebrew warriors to kill enemy infants (as perhaps they might have been inclined to do anyway), but removed the choice and mandated the child slaughter?

I didn't mean to be dismissive, I only meant to point out your error in premises. I did fail to remind you in this that God is the arbiter of the human soul. That God alone can command the death of a person (outside of war in the killing of enemy soldiers) because He alone can see into the heart and determine its final home. I did fail to mention that God is eternal as well as our souls, so He thinks more in eternal terms - of eternal results than in terms of the short lives of human bodies.

Put all that together and you have quite another equation on your hands. It isn't about the age of the ones being killed (they are, eternally-speaking, ageless), but rather the mercy of God's plan to provide us (all those who will choose it) a Way to Salvation. I have no doubt that God, in His infinite wisdom, judged those infant souls rightly, according to Justice and Mercy.

As you say, this infanticide is an early step in God’s way to “inch them toward faith in Him”.

That infants were killed along with the rest does not make the obedience infanticide.

Which puts this question in the realm of the moot.

If infanticide is a valid tool when God orders it, then would you be obedient if you felt you were ordered to slaughter kids?

Plus it was asked and answered in it's intent - I already answered this when you worded it differently. Isn't that what got us here to this point in the conversation?

 

[DavisBJ]

Yes. For awhile. One day every knee will bow to the One who is obviously "all that" but for now, God deems it important to allow us this sort of freedom.

It is so easy to say God allow “us” that sort of freedom, since we do not have the imminent threat of death for unfaithfulness, as the Hebrews had imposed on them.

I have heard it said that the US (and most other nations) are largely in rebellion against God. Why not ask God to impose on us the same level of obedience that he required anciently?

Let me ask you a question: if I consider carefully the making of a pair of wings and follow all that I sincerely believe about aerodynamics, if I make those wings and jump from a cliff (sincerely believing that they will make me fly), will I wind up at the bottom broken and dead or will my sincerity give me flight? Am I not responsible for my decisions, however sincerely made?

Yes you are. Do you envision this as being an accurate analogy to the ancient Hebrews? It hinges on one making a fatal decision. But the very meaning of fatal in the two contexts is different. In one it involves physical death – the death of the body – which all agree on. In the other it presumes your particular theological view of eternal life is the correct one. I for example, do not believe that a God will administer any form of spiritual death for sincere, if errant, decisions by men. A God who would do that is the antithesis of just and kind.

Drawing your analogy closer, then “If you are caught making faulty plans for wings, death.” If you dare leave the approved design and look to see if others might also work, death on the spot”. “If you use unapproved materials (which in reality will work just fine), death.” “If you work on approved wings on days not approved, death.” All in all, I think your analogy is rather strained.

I did fail to remind you in this that God is the arbiter of the human soul.

This is not something in evidence, and is in dispute.

That God alone can command the death of a person (outside of war in the killing of enemy soldiers) because He alone can see into the heart and determine its final home.

How else to put a face of respectability on actions, even in wartime, that modern war crimes tribunals have convicted leaders under? Just postulate that we cannot question God, and then He has unrestrained right to do as He will. (Oh, did I mention that same argument is just as efficacious for Zeus as for the Christian God?)

Put all that together and you have quite another equation on your hands. It isn't about the age of the ones being killed (they are, eternally-speaking, ageless), but rather the mercy of God's plan to provide us (all those who will choose it) a Way to Salvation. I have no doubt that God, in His infinite wisdom, judged those infant souls rightly, according to Justice and Mercy.

Then he could use that infinite wisdom to judge Jewish kids killed by Nazis, too. I had not realized the Nazis, when they killed Jewish youth, were in lockstep with Hebrew soldiers.

That infants were killed along with the rest does not make the obedience infanticide.

I agree, it is not the fact that they were killed along with their families that makes it infanticide. From Wiki: “Infanticide is the homicide of an infant”. So the term infanticide is the correct term, whether the other family members are killed or not, whether ordered by the Hebrew God or not, whether or not the parents were involved in armed conflict with the Hebrews.

Which puts this question in the realm of the moot.

Unmooted

Plus it was asked and answered in its intent - I already answered this when you worded it differently. Isn't that what got us here to this point in the conversation?

My apologies, on rereading your response from earlier, you affirmed that in fact you would slaughter children if you thought you were ordered to by God. It is a bit unnerving conversing with someone who openly avows that they could commit mass infanticide. Are you proud that you are that devoted to your God – that you would kill babies for Him?

 

[Jukia]

That God alone can command the death of a person (outside of war in the killing of enemy soldiers) because He alone can see into the heart and determine its final home.

Then if he loves us so much, why not take a peek into everyone's heart every hour or so and when the time is right to spend eternity with god just stop the heart and kill the person?

 

[agnostic_gnostic]

There is more to life than the intellect!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qM-gZintWDc&playnext=1&list=PLA4E85E4A66F93578
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qualia/

 

[Skavau]

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2677756&postcount=392

Yes. Are you the one who called himself a scientist, or was that Davis? I can't remember. Regardless, you are aware, I assume that there is no such thing as "cold?"

That must have been Davis, not me. In any case you have just de facto argued that all solipsists are technically empiricists.

Right. I worded that wrong, sorry about that. The higher authority would have to be one transcendent to nature - supernatural, and therefore unaffected by opinions of the material/natural beings.

This is just white noise. It doesn't actually mean anything. The higher authority no matter how transcendent, supernatural and unaffected by dissent would still just be representing an opinion on morality.

That way it is an objective standard. (please don't split the argument up here - I've tried to keep it all together. The argument concerning the possibility of God changing His mind concerning morality comes later

Too late (again). In any case, the fact that God is transcendent, supernatural and unaffected by us does not make it objective. Does not follow.

Altruism: unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others

Yes, I know what altruism means.

This only speaks again to your proclivity for altruism.

Okay. Good.

Consider: if there is a supernatural plain of existence - a spirit world - that interacts with the natural world to provide purpose and meaning, love and joy, peace and inspiration, then it makes perfect sense that from that spirit world comes the ultimate standard of morality. God's character permeates that spirit world and overlaps into the natural/material world in ways that anyone can discern if he is willing to accept the possibility of the supernatural. Any desire for justice flows from that aspect of God; any desire for mercy from the mercy of God; any appreciation of beauty from the creativity of God. The person of God is so big, He's hard to hide for the one who knows the attributes of God. Love, peace, joy, justice, mercy, creativity, fun, adventure... "All good things come from above..." says the Bible, which only means that all good things have their source in God.

God's 'character' would define that supernatural plain of existence. Things like love, joy, peace, inspiration, justice, mercy would all be defined by that supernatural plain of existence no matter what form they took. That is to say that if God was to define say love as hate you would have to accept it.

It is a very important doctrine of Christianity that God is immutable - that His character does not change. And you can see very clearly why when you think through morality for any time at all. It is why God insists throughout the Bible that He does not change - to give us security in that fact. God is the rock upon which the wise man can build his house without worry of shifting.

Yet if God was to decree change you would have to accept it. This is the problem you necessarily run into it. When you grant that all moral meaning only derives from God's word and that the only valid moral argument for anything ever is what God says then you reduce morality to nothing more then perpetual obedience to orders.

This only means that freedom suits your taste more than totalitarianism Still about personal taste, though. It is a taste that most of mankind seem to share - the taste for freedom even at the expense of perfection. We like freedom - it suits our taste.

Great!! I agree. It is why totalitarianism stagnates and ultimately falls. Can on this point we agree that every single human has one thing in common: the desire to be free of constraint and censorship from others?

I made it clear in my response what I meant. (You could even follow the quote links back to the original, if you would just leave the numbers on the opening quote tag. Please take a moment to learn this skill to make conversations easier and more trackable).

I'll put at link at the top of the page. I don't tend to respond to large posts on the horrendous editor on TOL, I cut and paste the quotations into wordpad. That way if Firefox crashes, or the internet cuts off I do not lose what I have written. Plus I have a larger field to work with. In any case you simply said that I would legislate on things more than you: but in what regard? Socially or economically?

Sorry about that - meant "freedom" rather than "right."

Then I am for the suppression of specific 'freedoms' that infringe upon other people's rights - that we establish through the rule of law.

Or something Not suicide.

Know that if you fail to convince me of your world-view, and you inject enough nihilism into my world-view that I could possibly commit suicide and thus cause a minor incident in the press which would get back here (the post record would be there as well!)

But take heart, since I'm not actually going to commit suicide.

Nice analogy Unfortunately it won't work because it presumes that following the reading or viewing, we can consider that which we have read or viewed. Not the case with life and death. 70 years from now, in all likelihood, you will be dead. Whether you die tomorrow or in 70 years, you will have nothing at the end of 70 years - nothing with which to remember, to consider, to regret or to be proud of Nothing. 70 more years or 70 more minutes will not make any difference 70 years and a day from now - not to you if you go to oblivion.

Correct.

So? The fact that I will eventually stop existing gives me all the reason to continue existing for as long as possible.

And I was beginning to hope that you would actually try to understand what I post. What a waste.

What did I get wrong there?

You read into my post what wasn't there. I am getting more and more certain that you intend to be a troll.

You literally proposed a conspiracy theory that had the entire management of a field necessarily involved. Most people who hold inconsistent skepticism towards evolution believe in a conspiracy theory. Indeed it is arguably the bedrock of groups like the Discovery Institute and the Answers in Genesis racket.

Defending hyperbole with hyperbole? Way to dig that hole deeper.

Does it matter what I use to express myself? The point is that your claim that people support mass murder to resolve overpopulation issues was simply untrue. If it does exist (and it may well do) it is consigned to the backwater of the internet.

We can Isn't that just cool? Well, at least to some degree, but the supernatural must be explained supernaturally. By definition, the supernatural is beyond nature, and therefore beyond natural measures or explanations.

So how can we explain the supernatural? Can you give me some examples of whether a breach in nature occured (or continues to occur) and how it can be explained (and accurately so)?

No, it is materialistically immeasurable.

An analogy: you fall in love By your actions and your words others might guess that you are in love, but can they know? Not on your life. They can look at the evidence and make a judgment call. The only one for whom that love is evidence all by itself is you.

Absolutely. That is why no-one turns around and says that love can be objectively known. It is just like I do not go around and deny that people had some kind of experience or incident that they attribute to the divine. I might say that they were misinformed or attribute an incorrect explanation but I do not outright accuse them of deception.

Faith is empirical - it should suit your philosophy nicely

Just how is faith empirical...

 

[agnostic_gnostic]

"In any case you have just de facto argued that all solipsists are technically empiricists."
Skavau
"Here we see that solipsism strictly carried out coincides with pure realism. The I in solipsism shrinks to an extensionless point and there remains the reality co-ordinated with it."
Wittgenstein
Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus 5.64
FROM
http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...&gl=us&client=firefox-a&source=www.google.com
"Considered by some to be the greatest philosopher of the 20th century....."
FROM
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/wittgenstein/