Natural Justice: Does it exist?

[Blue]

Very sensible comments - I thought MITF and V

[Sacredstar]

Dear mirrorinthefog

Originally Posted by mirrorinthefog

I don't think Blue is trying to discourage anyone from communing with the Divine, as much as stating that the human experience is subjective. Of course anyone can contact God, but first they have to believe in God, so as to prepare themselves for the experience Otherwise they can translate the communion as anything from hallucination to fatigue to illusion and trickery. If you don't believe, you can't see. And if you do, the Divine is everywhere!

We will have to agree to disagree on this one. One does not have to have belief at all to have mystical experiences. I didn't believe in angels till I saw them with my own eyes and heard them with my own ears. Many Pagans are now starting to see Jesus and Mary and at first they want to reject it, but yet they cannot reject what they are seeing and hearing.

Originally Posted by mirrorinthefog

In the same way, arguably, everything is very much dependant on what we make of it. Reality itself is subjective. Our senses can be just as deceptive as our hearts and our minds. What we assert is real, or proven to be real, is only the reflection of human observation. We have nothing but ourselves against which we can compare life and existance. We believe we exist, and there is no earthly way of proving ourselves right or wrong. We simply have to take our own word for it.

Again sometimes people have the same experience and see the same things, at the same time. (sometimes in the same room, sometimes not) Recently I did a remote scan/healing carrying out soul retrieval from a past life, the gentleman was on an island and I was on the mainland but yet this CEO saw the same Apostle as myself.

Love beyond measure

Sacredstar

[Blue]

There is nothing to say that what is solely conceived of affectively in the hearts and minds of individuals is somehow 'wrong'.
If they conceive that angels can be 'seen' they have to mean they see them 'in their own terms, affectively, in their own hearts and minds.'

No one can disprove their 'vision'.
Others can legitimately call it delusional thinking, or criticise, but they cannot disprove the authenticity of the individual's inner experiences.

On the other hand, to claim, as a result of inner experiences only, that 'angels', OR Jesus and Mary, ACTUALLY 'visited' in objective reality beyond themselves is easy to tackle experimentally, and to validate or not, objectively. Of course, the latter has never been done of anyone.

A St Joan may claim the authenticity of her voices... but no one can prove her wrong... or right!
That is why she was convicted 'doctrinally' and not 'objectively' by a theocratic court with a political purpose. Only if she claims they stand before for all to see, and the audience cannot see objectively and materially, is there room for valid criticism.

We must be aware of these differences.
We should not condemn those who claim to consort with angels or be visited by Jesus and Mary. The fact is there is no proof. We are reliant upon the speaker declaring their experience.
The fact is they can no more prove what they say, than someone like me can disprove what they say.
If on the other hand an individual declares and affirms they have an objective Archangel standing beside them, outside of themselves... I have a right to say that is nonsense if I cannot objectively perceive the Archangel or put the Archangel to objective and empirical tests and neither can anyone else. That will then be termed a delusion, an irrationality on the part of the person standing beside their Archangel. Their 'self-validated perception' is objectively false.

For them to simply claim that I need to share their belief in the Archangel in order to perceive, then they are being dishonest and irrational. If they say the Archangel is actually and objectively there... and it isn't... belief questions don't come into the matter.

Indeed, this is why there is confusion when someone says they KNOW angels exist.
What they really mean is that they conceive the angels exist, for them, forgetting that means just for them, because that is all they can ever validate and attest to (to themselves - not others).
To then declare and affirm that angels DO exist... everywhere and objectively beyond themselves is irrational, because they cannot prove it, but I can prove there is no empirical and objective evidence for their claim... because we do not have the 'object' there to test.

Of course, angels may objectively exist... we may just have never found any so we can test to their objectivity.

To the 'believer' who has seen their angels, we can only say, that's fine.
Let us hope they are there for good and not evil.

Simply, if they conceive of such matters within themeselves, that's fine, and they validate its personal truth. To extend that to a declaration that angels actually DO exist, is nonsense, and for them to argue that that we cannot see them, because we do not really want to see them, or they -the angels - do not wish to be seen by the rest of us... is irrelevant.

Angels exist in the minds of those who conceive of them.
They do not 'live' anywhere else, so far as we know, or have independent existence, that can be demonstrated.

People just cannot say things exist because they can conceive of them subjectively and imaginatively. They need to demonstrate they exist outside of themselves.
All they can say is... "they may have independent and objective existence beyond my conceptions, but I too have to recognise there is no evidence beyond what my affective nature and nurture tells me."

Angels are not proven as independent entities just because someone asserts that they do...

Please... I do not wish this posting to 'sound' harshly critical. Rather than a criticism, it is an endeavour to state things as they rationally are.

[Sacredstar]

Dearest Blue

Yes as they rationally are to you, which is your perception based upon the fact that you have never seen them. For if you had seen them, you would not write as you do. Some people see beyond the veil and many more are doing so every day. I love this quote from Carl Jung.

"The prominence of the subjective factor does not imply a personal subjectivism, despite the readiness of the extraverted attitude to dismiss the subjective factor as nothing but subjective. The subjective is not as subjective as we think, for the deeper we reach into the psychic currents of inner life, the more we leave behind the merely personal and touch those elements of experience that are timeless, unaffected by personalitic factors, and thus in a certain sense truly objective."

There is a prophecy in the bible where it says the veil will be swept away from all. In my experience it is only judgement and lack of trust that stops people from seeing beyond the veil.

So I look forward to the day when judgement and lack of trust is not an issue anymore, and all people are aligned with their birth right and sacred divinity.

Dr Samanta-Laughton as written an article on the 'Science of Angels'
www.drmunchie.com

and Dr Christine Anderson as been lecturing about them for years.

Love beyond measure

Sacredstar

[Blue]

"The prominence of the subjective factor does not imply a personal subjectivism, despite the readiness of the extraverted attitude to dismiss the subjective factor as nothing but subjective. The subjective is not as subjective as we think, for the deeper we reach into the psychic currents of inner life, the more we leave behind the merely personal and touch those elements of experience that are timeless, unaffected by personalitic factors, and thus in a certain sense truly objective."

Is this any more than personal opinion, SacredStar?
Typical of Jung, I think!

[Blue]

www.drmunchie.com

I think, SacredStar, you should not take the lady too seriously.

Just review her references in the article.

It is strange that the 'unknown' and the 'mysteries' are always labelled as 'mystic'.

There is no mystic aspect of physics, quantum or otherwise; there is simply that which is unknown or not understood.

As soon as you step into the METAphysical aspects you depart from the simple and obvious statement that 'x' is an unknown. Being an unknown, empirical investigations are the only approach following the hypothesis, objectively conducted into the 'mystery' and its objective context and relevance. (This is the same thing as Professor Flew, who now determines that 'complexity' itself is indicative of a mystery and that mystery is an entity of intelligence.)

These people, like Munchie are, I am afraid, all the same; making the ages old mistakes, in thinking there is (like Jung -touch(?) those elements of experience that are timeless(?), unaffected by personalitic factors,(cannot be proven) and thus in a certain sense truly objective(a matter either is objective or it isn't..no such thing as 'truly').") an inner reality as objective as the domain beyond self.
(The red highlights are mine)
To declare such metaphysical concepts (or the mysticism) some kind of reality does not make it so beyond the affective nature and nurture of the individual.

I could say both Angels and Santa are 'real', because I conceive of them as so. THAT does not make it so. They can only be considered 'real' within your own conceptions and that does not signify as objective reality. It remains only an unlikely subjectively conceived possibility.

Perhaps you should write to Munchie and ask about the mystical vibrational universe, etc., and ask her for repeatable empirical evidential material?

If she produces evidence of the effects of vibrations induced in material concerns without causes that can be properly investigated, ask her how this shows anything mystical beyond her own concepts, or is even possible?

As usual, I am sad to say it is symptomatic of the irrational as compared with the reasoned and rational approach.
(Remember I do not doubt the authenticity of the individual's affective experiences! If they say they see or speak with Angels, they do, as far as they are concerned.)

Bless you, for vigorously keeping up this debate, SacredStar!

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by Blue

These people, like Munchie are, I am afraid, all the same; making the ages old mistakes, in thinking there is (like Jung -touch(?) those elements of experience that are timeless(?), unaffected by personalitic factors,(cannot be proven) and thus in a certain sense truly objective(a matter either is objective or it isn't..no such thing as 'truly').") an inner reality as objective as the domain beyond self.
(The red highlights are mine)
To declare such metaphysical concepts (or the mysticism) some kind of reality does not make it so beyond the affective nature and nurture of the individual.

I'm out of my league here (never on the dabate team, never took philosophy), but wouldn't you say, Blue, that by your stringent criteria you'd be hard put to know for certain whether anything you experience, including input from the five senses and any interpersonal relationships, exists outside your own mind? Is even your body real?

[Blue]

Hi peaceful, Lunamoth!

You say:Is even your body real?

If it isn't, then please explain how an independent significant other like a Hospital Consultant could diagnose this body of mine without any input from myself. He concluded I was diabetic.

What you hypothesise is fanciful, if I may say so politely.

It is something that crops up on these forums again and again.
I am afraid to say there are many instances that can be demonstrated to show I have no input to the determination of what is perceived in many cases.
I perceive the waning moon from my position on this planet's surface and have no control whatsoever over that perception. Indeed I can use astronomical measures and ask another researcher to do the same independently... we will arrive at the same conclusion whatever our affective natures and nurtures might wish to say to us otherwise of the objective facts.
A bullet in my heart is likely to cause my death. There is nothing I could do about it. If my body is not 'real', why should that be?

Have you been watching the Matrix? lol

[Sacredstar]

Dear Lunamoth

Good point!

Dear Blue

This is quote that someone else put up on another forum!

"It has been a delight to see the scientists, those very people who cast the most scorn on metaphysical reality be the ones to prove it exists ! A fantastic irony !" Ru

There is plenty of research on the internet if you are seriously interested in it. But I will leave you to seek it for yourself for I have no desire to prove my reality.

One last point, you mention the doctor and your body. How do you explain with your rational mind that I have been able to find the physical locality of a medical problem remotely, that doctors could not find? Never even met the person or knew anything about them.

being love

Sacredstar

PS Dr Munchie has been asked to lecture at medical schools, she also lectures at conferences, scientists, teachers and doctors attend her lectures and workshops. Check her out if she comes up your way, I think the real thing is better then the articles!

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by Blue

Have you been watching the Matrix? lol

It's one of my favorites, LOL!

I'll take on the thought experiment you propose and see if I can come up with anything worthy of posting.

[mirrorinthefog]

Well, then, arguably, what Sacredstar is saying is also true. If more than one person can objectively experience something strongly, then they can accept it as valid. Science, after all, is a human invention, for humans, using human resources. The material world is our invention. Our perception of the cycles of the moon are just that...And what we call science is our interpretation of what causes it to be. We have no real way of validating our existance beyond ourselves.

[Blue]

MITF,

I am afraid I just cannot accept this, or let it go! lol

"The material world is our invention. "

It is not.

Evidence is needed to claim it is a perceptual invention.

There is plenty of independent evidence - that is not dependent upon how I personal perceive it - for the material domain's independent existence.

It doesn't matter how I perceive Lead or Gold.... Lead and Gold have properties to be perceived independently of my perceptions, tested and repeatably verified without me being concerned. Whether you accept that evidence is entirely up to you. If you refuse to accept it, you place yourself into the realm of metaphysics, as compared with the objective sciences that grew from metaphysics. You also place yourself in the position of only accepting what you perceive affectively, without reason and rationality playing a part, or the others who pursue the investigations of the material universe.

Lead and Gold can be verified by investigation, empirically conducted, in the material domain, be it of their atomic weight or whatever, irrespective of any irrational affective perceptions of my own.

If I happen to maintain that Lead is in fact a jelly to be eaten at a children's party, or Gold is a common object to be found everywhere by everybody, in great profusion, both propositions can be shown to be false.

The same goes for your reference back to the Moon.
It isn't there in its orbit around the Earth just because I perceive it to be so. I might conceive that it doesn't really exist in its own right at all, or that ALL other perceivers are wrong to maintain that it is there and does do what it can be shown to do, and that I could travel to it and stand upon it. The fact remains I could be proved wrong, objectively, materially, empirically in accord with reason and rationality.

Taking phenomenalism to the extent that all the observed material world is dependent upon my perceptions is a nonsense. It is irrational.

Just because I might cease to exist tonight, doesn't mean YOU won't be able to perceive the Moon tomorrow. If it had actually vanished with my loss of my perception of it, you would undoubtedly know about it if you lived anywhere near a coastline... very quickly.

People just seem to confuse, poetically I suppose, mystically, what is meant by a personal perception. I CAN say the Moon no longer exists without my seeing it. I need to SEE it for it to exist - but THAT does not mean it IS so... just because I think affectively about the perception or hold the absence of my perception affectively, doesn't mean it actually is so... it could be down to my ignorance or simply being blind or a failure to allow reason and rationality to play their part. Opinions and Intuitions are not facts. If you can present some evidence... well...

Are you really going to say a bullet that enters your heart is just a figment of your personal perceptions? - That the bullet has no objective solidity outside of your own perceptions? Are you going to claim this for your companion who is shot beside you... without you knowing, until you turn in your dying pool of blood and see him bleeding too... claiming he's been hit by a bullet in the stomach?

Does TIME stop when you die? Yes...for you it has! Your burial party will know that TIME in our objective reality has stopped for you, but not for them.

Did the Earth exist before humanity came on the scene?

These are the results of saying, as you have: "The material world is our invention. "

The Laws of Physics,such as they are, where inherent in the material universe before we could appreciate them... that's how we derived them... by observing what is, and not just what we felt about it.

I advise reading Lucretius, who actually describes quite accurately, atomic theory, by simple observations of what IS in nature, long before he could validate his concepts materially as we have done. He wasn't projecting some kind of affective response, he was depending on making logical deductions from a reality observed...and so he has been proven right.

You might also have affective hypotheses about the world...but you must, without being irrational, make them on material grounds, even if at the time you have neither the technology or means to test and validate it. To claim matters are so, just because you perceive it to be so... with no reason, isn't good enough. It has to be related to observations others can make and can independently materially warrant.

I hope I have given you something to consider, my friend?

If my father had conceived of me only as a personal affective matter, I would not be here... it is safe to claim.

[mirrorinthefog]

Blue,

I understand what you're saying, and it's not that I disagree with it. I'm just playing the devil's advocate.

Sacredstar mentioned that someone who is objectively trying to reach God can also reach him, whether he/she beleives in him or not. I don't agree with that, although I respect her opinion.

No, one can't deny that the material world works a certain way regardless of what we think of it personally. When I said the material world was our invention, I think I didn't phrase what I meant to say properly. Of course the world would still exist if humanity were to disappear. One can know that despite his or her limited, individual perception of the universe.

That aside, we have no real way of knowing whether or not this is "real" in the first place. We can answer how the world around us works, we can deduce that one action will elicit a certain reaction, but we can't know whether or not the physical world around us is "real". We live in it, and others around us can agree with us that it exists because they live in it also, and because we are all the same species, we will be able to see things more or less the same way (unless you're colorblind, the sky is blue, the ocean is blue, leaves are green. It's very easy to observe that objects fall to the earth due to gravity, water vaporizes when boiled, the sun moves over the horizon at particular angles every year around the same time etc) But do we know beyond a doubt that that's what reality is? In my opinion, there's no way of knowing.

It's certainly possible that there is no other reality but the physical world, and I'm not saying one should deny scientific evidence of how our world works. If I'm shot and take a bullet through the heart, my organs will cease to function properly, and, unable to sustain me and carry out vital life functions, cause my death. You will continue to live, so my perception of whether or not you exist will no longer be relavant, but the fact that you continue to live while I don't doesn't mean that we are in fact ever in existance in the first place. Using the material world as a measure of its own existance doesn't prove anything.

That being said, I agree that faith cannot be proven using logic or science, and in the end is subjective. But then agian, science only tells us how things work...not why they work, or even if there is a reason behind it at all. It's possible that it's only able to solve half of the equation.

Meh...not only was that long it didn't make any sense.... I'm sorry...

[lunamoth]

MITF and Blue,

MITF has said it. I don't refute any of your points that belief in the Divine is not rational or objective. In fact, whenever someone starts to talk about scientific evidence or rational proof of God I start to get quite irritated! If there was objective evidence of God the whole shooting match would be over, IMHO. I'm not sure how life as we know it could continue to exist. I think this is where End Times prophecy stems from. Once God shows His face in a way that can't be denied, it's all over.

But now I'm the one not making sense!

[Sacredstar]

Originally Posted by mirrorinthefog

Sacredstar mentioned that someone who is objectively trying to reach God can also reach him, whether he/she beleives in him or not. I don't agree with that, although I respect her opinion.

This as been misunderstood, what I meant was that GOD and his/her messengers can come to a person without ANY desire or aspiration by the person themself to reach or to know GOD. In fact I have read in the past that this is how some people became born again christians. They had a mystical experience that changed their lives forevermore.

Sometimes there is little choice in the matter.....after incarnation. It is all part of the divine plan in our experience.

Love beyond measure

Sacredstar