Proposition about God that can be "tested"

[sgttomas]

I know more about many things in their respective fields of notoriety than some of history's greatest minds.

I know more mathematics and physics than Isaac freeking Newton...fer pete's sake.

I know this because of the power of information access abilities (technology and aptitude) available to me. ...I am the legacy of many great minds. This accretion of mind ability is astonishing.

....is it true that I, by the same manner of accretion, may know more about God?

Then, how do we appreciate the remarkable ability for mimicry in terms of human "knowledge"? Whether it is sculpting David or programming NHL '08(c) there is a neural process of empathy and approximation that can astonishingly seem to recreate anything about the human experience given the right tools of expression. Is God something to be mimicked?

Well.....what kind of thing is God? accretion or mimicry? ...both? ....neither?

Peace,
-sgttomas

[KR Wordgazer]

Neither.

Taking Isaac Newton as an example. . .

I can read lots of biographies about Isaac Newton, increasing my knowledge and understanding of who he was. I can even, from the knowledge I gain from these, feel like I actually knew him. I can then close my eyes and imagine I'm meeting him face to face.

But did I actually meet Newton? Do I actually know him the way his wife knew him, or his children, or even his colleagues? No.

Newton himself, the consciousness with which I would have interacted if I'd known him personally, was neither an accretion or mimicry.

God is like Newton, only much more so. Acquiring all the knowledge and understanding of all the people who have lived and experienced God before me, doensn't make me actually experience God for myself. And experiencing God for myself is what matters.

[sgttomas]

Neither.

Taking Isaac Newton as an example. . .

I can read lots of biographies about Isaac Newton, increasing my knowledge and understanding of who he was. I can even, from the knowledge I gain from these, feel like I actually knew him. I can then close my eyes and imagine I'm meeting him face to face.

But did I actually meet Newton? Do I actually know him the way his wife knew him, or his children, or even his colleagues? No.

Newton himself, the consciousness with which I would have interacted if I'd known him personally, was neither an accretion or mimicry.

Hm....well, then what else is it? You mention a list of things that successively build up your knowledge of Newton, but then deny that this has any power to fulfill "real" knowledge. You mention that those who witnessed him would know him better, but not through "mimicry" (which I called a combination of empathy and approximation) but how else then?

God is like Newton, only much more so. Acquiring all the knowledge and understanding of all the people who have lived and experienced God before me, doensn't make me actually experience God for myself. And experiencing God for myself is what matters.

How do you do that? Other than mimicry and accretion, the only other means of knowledge I know for humans is sensation. What it "feels like" to be human. So do we know God by what it feels like to be me?

If not, how else do you propose knowledge?

Peace,
-sgttomas

[KR Wordgazer]

Hm....well, then what else is it? You mention a list of things that successively build up your knowledge of Newton, but then deny that this has any power to fulfill "real" knowledge. You mention that those who witnessed him would know him better, but not through "mimicry" (which I called a combination of empathy and approximation) but how else then?

Are you asking this rhetorically, Sgt? You surely know that there is a difference between just knowing about a person, and knowing the person. In the former case you have stuff people have written or told you, you have quotes, you may have a recording or video, you may have biographical material-- but you don't have interaction, give-and-take, with a real person. I guess, if you have to categorize it, I'd say the latter, the real interaction with a real person, combines sensation with empathy and approximation. You see their facial expressions, you hear them talk, you process what they're saying to you, the tone of their voice-- everything. Then they listen to and respond to you. Knowing about a person is just not the same as that.

God is like Newton, only much more so. Acquiring all the knowledge and understanding of all the people who have lived and experienced God before me, doensn't make me actually experience God for myself. And experiencing God for myself is what matters.

How do you do that? Other than mimicry and accretion, the only other means of knowledge I know for humans is sensation. What it "feels like" to be human. So do we know God by what it feels like to be me?

If not, how else do you propose knowledge?

I think that religious experience-- direct experience of the transcendent, the numinous-- is something else, something in addition to all these other means of obtaining knowledge. My religious experiences "feel" (for lack of a better word), like God is communicating directly to my mind, without the need of sensory experience. I suppose that immediately afterwards, I use other methods, like accretion or approximation (if I understand how you're using the terms), to assimilate what I have experienced. But special times in prayer, or peak experiences when suddenly everything seems clear, are both really much more like interaction with someone you know, than secondhand knowledge about someone that you acquire.

[sgttomas]

Hm....well, then what else is it? You mention a list of things that successively build up your knowledge of Newton, but then deny that this has any power to fulfill "real" knowledge. You mention that those who witnessed him would know him better, but not through "mimicry" (which I called a combination of empathy and approximation) but how else then?

Are you asking this rhetorically, Sgt? You surely know that there is a difference between just knowing about a person, and knowing the person. In the former case you have stuff people have written or told you, you have quotes, you may have a recording or video, you may have biographical material-- but you don't have interaction, give-and-take, with a real person.

Well, I think what you go on to say sheds some light on how you work with those boundaries:

I guess, if you have to categorize it, I'd say the latter, the real interaction with a real person, combines sensation with empathy and approximation. You see their facial expressions, you hear them talk, you process what they're saying to you, the tone of their voice-- everything. Then they listen to and respond to you. Knowing about a person is just not the same as that.

Okay. I'm not trying to draw a fine distinction between knowing and knowing about something. I don't see such a clear boundary of type, just degree. We are always acting remotely from the "real other" because there is no fully complete definition of that person. I would argue that a sandcastle is just as much an expression of a person as a smile.

One can have sensations of the other person while being quite remote from them. That's the power of imagination. Since our whole concept of reality is in our imagination, we can be flexible in what is deemed a "true" experience. While you might argue that this isn't the "genuine" article because it is removed by time and space, I would counter that all of our perceptions are remote. I do grant, however, that one cannot have as much sensory knowledge of a person if they are rather remote. I believe the same concept can be demonstrated for accretion and mimicry, also.

It's a reflection of our self-perception that is the light in other people's eyes. The amazing thing is that we can communicate in such a fashion as to filter and influence those around us in a harmonious way (and in turn be filtered and influenced) so that it's entirely blurry which "self" is being reflected. ....I guess what I'm getting at is that we do also know certain things of others as we know ourselves. I think this is reflected in the commandment to love our neighbors as ourselves. Empathy and experience and emotions can invite a good portion of another "self" to very intimately interact with our own "self".

.In the sense I describe it, "loved ones" are present because their own self has made an imprint on our perception of our self and surroundings: we see - in some way literally - through their eyes. But it's a difference of degree, not type.

...does that sound like the distinction you make?

I think that religious experience-- direct experience of the transcendent, the numinous-- is something else, something in addition to all these other means of obtaining knowledge. My religious experiences "feel" (for lack of a better word), like God is communicating directly to my mind, without the need of sensory experience. I suppose that immediately afterwards, I use other methods, like accretion or approximation (if I understand how you're using the terms), to assimilate what I have experienced. But special times in prayer, or peak experiences when suddenly everything seems clear, are both really much more like interaction with someone you know, than secondhand knowledge about someone that you acquire.

Well, I think one could classify this as a sixth sense....since this is a direct perception that your self first feels and then "dissects", it seems of the same family. In that way, it's a matter of your sensation being very approximate to the source, versus a rather remote experience.

Does that fit with what you know?

Peace,
-sgttomas

[KR Wordgazer]

Yeah, I think you've described it pretty well, Sgt. So then you think what I'm talking about is a form of sensation, not mimicry or accretion?

[sgttomas]

Yeah, I think you've described it pretty well, Sgt. So then you think what I'm talking about is a form of sensation, not mimicry or accretion?

Right. I think that's what you're telling me.

You sense this often?

Peace,
-sgttomas

[KR Wordgazer]

Fairly often, yes. Hard to say exactly how often. Sometimes every month or two; sometimes it can happen more than once in one week.

[sgttomas]

Wow.

I think I sensed something similar once. Quite a memorable and intense experience.

...what do you think lends to this experience?

Peace,
-sgttomas

[KR Wordgazer]

Wow.

I think I sensed something similar once. Quite a memorable and intense experience.

...what do you think lends to this experience?

Peace,
-sgttomas

I feel I should make a distinction between what seems to me to be two different kinds of experiences:

The first is a "peak experience" as described by Maslow, when I am caught up into an exalted state where everything seems crystal clear and meaningful. I have only had a couple of those in my lifetime.

The second is the much more common experience I often have in prayer, where the presence of God seems to be palpable in the room, like a warm weight pressing down all around me, like an embrace. It is this which happens frequently, as I mentioned above. When this happens, "messages" or "knowings" seem to appear whole-cloth within my thinking, knowings that bring healing to my heart or give direction where I've been confused, that do not seem to come from me but from God.

About the "peak experiences" -- I don't know what causes them. I believe they are a gratuitious gift.

The things I will call "prayer experiences" often come out of the blue too-- I'll kneel to pray and immediately God's presence will be there, without my having done anything to "invoke" Him. But more often He comes palpably like this after a long period of worship, Bible study or prayer.

Occasionally, though, His presence and messages from Him come when I'm not praying at all, but just going about mundane tasks. The communcation that I was going to have a son came like this.

Hope this answers your questions. To anyone else reading this-- be gentle, please, with doubts and skepticism. I'm baring my soul here.