I'm being held in existence. If you value yourself then show me how that's not happening for you, prove your belief is true.
It's not a matter of absolute certitude, it's a matter if someone disagrees with me has any sanity.
happy Easter, my High Holy Day as in MINE! — Daniel Cox

For a philosophy site, so much wrong in so few words. Let's try this. I'm guessing you hold the particulars of your faith to be true. If so, two questions: what are some of the important matters of your faith that you hold true? And what do you mean by true?

This is an opportunity for you to define your terms to the end of recovering some sense. For example, you might define as true what you believe; i.e., "I believe it, therefore it's true!" Yes? No?

Hi Tim, I can't you believe you believe what you're saying to me?

How do I KNOW I'm being held in existence? Because I'm being held in existence, it doesn't get any simpler than that. I'm experiencing every moment of my life, my existence, me being held in existence. There is no ontological mystery. What it entails, what it means to you, is just that. I don't hold sway how you causally engender knowledge.

Without sounding too sarcastic, stand in front of a mirror, and see what's happening.

It's not exclusively a belief I have that I'm being held in existence. I'm reminded of something, this should help clear things up 100%.

DENNETT: NO NATURALIST MODEL CAN REPRESENT THE EXPERIENCE OF CONSCIOUSNESS. A long reasoned and careful analysis Dennett shows that no naturalist model can represent the elements present in experience. He therefore concludes we must reject experience. SO, DENNETT REJECTS EXPERIENCE FOR NATURALIST THEORY. Of course this is exactly the opposite of the scientific method. - Dfpolis #21 The Two Subsystem Mind.

God haters REJECT experience! They're all morons. I experience being held in existence. I'm not going to quibble over labels one could attach to the being responsible, that gets into religious ground I suspect you're not keen on.

Be Blessed Tim,
: D

Earlier in your comment you validly claimed to adhere to what you experience, only what is empirical. You sort of (in all kindness) "jumped ship" to a "new theory." By memory alone, evolution is not interested in the truth, its interest is reproduction. — Daniel Cox

I said:

It seems to me that empiricism and rationalism are part of the same process and inseparable. — Harry Hindu

I also said that our thoughts are made of sensory data - empirical data. Our experience of our memories takes the same form, albeit a less vivid and detailed form, as our experience of the world. It seems natural to integrate our memories with our experiences with the world. It seems natural to make sense of the experiences so that one can learn to predict the good and bad ones. In other words, rationalism and empiricism are inseparable.

"As Chalmers has pointed out there is no way in which external observations can tell us that an individual is conscious. It is only because of our own individual personal experience of being aware that we know that such a thing as consciousness exists." Dfpolis R-3-2 — Daniel Cox

Right, so the contents of "consciousness" is consistently a perspective from atop the pedestal of a body. I can see my own body with a "consciousness" placed right between the eyes. When I look in a mirror and get really close, the parts of my body that get really big are my eyes. I experience other things that are shaped like me (bodies with eyes and other sensory organs) and behave like me and that I have this special ability with (language use). What is the best explanation for these experiences that is consistent and coherent (rational)?

"Experience a memory"? I don't think of memories as experiences.

I don't think our rationale counts as empiricism and I don't think it relates in any way. Most everyone I know rationalizes their position.

I'm seeing a pattern here over the last 11 years. I'm reminded of something I read about how adult people when polled claim to have an above average intelligence, 96% of adults say that.

One of us has empiricism, and one of us doesn't. When I mention, "one of us is wrong across the board, and you're not considering the logical possibility it's you," I never seem to get through to the other person.

Nobody likes being informed they could even possibly be wrong about everything, but wouldn't you agree that's what it is? I've met God, I experience God every moment, I'm held in existence by God, I direct my awareness every moment. All of these ongoing facts prove "naturalism/atheism/functionalism" and so forth, wrong.

You're saying "Sensory data - empiricism" but that doesn't militate against God holding us in existence. Each of you who disagrees with me is asking me to go through your comments as if I was your personal biographer, to understand every single nuance of how you're reaching your conclusions, trying to condition my responses to meet your version of things.

I'm really trying to reach you on a meaningful level. I'm an ordained minister. It wasn't easy, I didn't get my ordination from a box of Cracker Jacks. I worked at it, I had to get approval from my instructors. Actual people decided if God said, "He's one of mine" or not. Actual ministers decided. Here, God deniers claim, "It's all bullshit." Well, that doesn't take any discipline. I can make the exact same case for "naturalism" as you are but actually provide all of the so-called scientific evidence the God deniers use.

For instance, how does one overcome 300 sigma of proof regarding the phenomenology of psychic experience? They claim, "The choices were not randomized." What kind of sensory data is that? None. It wouldn't even matter if the choices of psychic experiments were not randomized. The test takers would need to do that which brings me to the next attempt to overcome, "Fraud." No one who accuses the thousands of parapsychologists of all being frauds has any proof fraud is occurring except in the same number of cases where "natural" scientists commit fraud, "It's a proven fact we're all born atheists, it's a scientifically proven fact."

My ass always chaffs a bit when people claim something is a scientifically proven fact, or "It's an empirical proof." I never experience any of the things you're claiming.

Here's something else, Harry. I see a psychiatrist, I'm diagnosed bipolar. My mind has been constantly examined by professionals, I've been to group/s on and off for about the last six years. I know everything there is to know about how academia addresses the mind. They don't. They're worse than Dr. Chalmers.

One last thing, and please don't quote me, just answer me like we were both normal people. The last thing is that the first couple of years here online I wasn't using the same empirical practice I'm sharing with you now. One of my enemies I didn't know was my enemies was the belief promoted by Lawrenece Krauss, a flipping moron, he wrote a book, "A Universe from Nothing." I was actually arguing against my own position. I made a change, I decided before I tell you something that there would be zero chance it was wrong.

I went back to the drawing board. I started all over, "Is this actually true or is it just something I'm thinking?" I believe I've been to church 7 times in just one week. I used to be a part of a morning prayer group that met 5 times a week, and then once or twice on Sunday. Let's say 5 times a week. I had to trash all of that, "Is this real or not?" Yes, I experienced the Shekinah Glory when I went to church. I only went to churches were God moved in His Shekinah Glory. It's a real experience. Some churches were dead, they didn't really know God, they were just going through the motions. So, even though I trashed everything and started all over again, I found that there were indisputable truths such as God in the act of Love/Charity. One can give money to another person and not love them. It's not actual charity.

When I talk to God haters and say, "Look at Love/God as described in 1 Corinthians 13" they say, "Charity, I do that, I donate to Doctors without Borders." Well, you can see how big of a difference those God haters are making. They're hating me, they're telling me in essence, "You're lower than a priest who rapes children."

Hating/denying God to me is not loving me, and it's not any kind of rationale. When we love people we must love them universally or it doesn't count. Love is patient, love is kind, love does not seek its own. Naturalism doesn't do that, naturalists seek their own. They aren't loving anyone by donating to "Doctors without Borders," they're using the money the same way Judas Iscariot did.

I appreciate the conversation, but I can never be convinced of the opposite of what I experience every moment of my life.

The fact consciousness is contained in an independent observer or experience of phenomenon does not lead to the verificationalist fallacy being a legitimate premise or fallacy. Not if one wants to consider language be it all words and math somehow being shared and not independent, assumes one learns and imparts understanding in the exchange of ideas....

The usual toolbags who would argue for the extreme idealist position using such a concept out of one side of their mouth would argue for sociohistorical and socioeconomic/cultural conditioning. The kind of person who wants to eat cake and not get fat.

The only thing a verificationalist needs to do is argue he believes in atoms, molecules, DNA, cells and physiology all by his own self without it being contingent on the projects of biological sciences and then we can talk about the credibility of such a false premise. Moreover how he himself would argue react to the position of someone arguing the world is flat in 2019 without appealing to Naturalism. Until then I can only maintain a healthy skepticism of such a position.