Draft Proof regarding numinous experiences
2009-12-04
Presumption: There is atleast some truth in the reported numinous experiences.
- Those that claim to have had numinous experiences talk of an entity greater than it is capable to describe through language strucures.
- Other such concepts exist (Example: Love).
- These concepts are exclusively ones of perfection (in their purest forms).
- Other such concepts exist (Example: Love).
- God is a perfect being.
- It is more perfect to exist as the only being of perfection, than one of many.
Intermediate-Conclusion 1: Therefore, God is the only perfect being.
Conclusion: The subject of numinous experiences is God.
Debate greatly appreciated.
“Greater than words can describe” and “Beyond Human comprehension” are two very different things. The former can be comprehended by Humans but can’t be described due to language limitations, while the latter can’t be grasped at all. Also, how do you know who’s speaking the truth and who’s lying about those “visions” or whatever they are?
I’m picking on the details, but in truth don’t really get your argument. Could you please elaborate for my sake?
When I was a kid, sometimes, when I entered the correct state of mind I would see a vision of perfect chaos and destruction. It was colored in shade of brown and gray. Hope this helps you somehow.
Finally got what you are saying, and it doesn’t make sense. Just because God is perfect doesn’t mean that numinous experiences are about God, as there could be something else that from a Human’s perspective is perfect.
Sorry it took me so long to get back to you yman, I’ve had a lot of work, thinking and reading to do recently.
I accidently assumed alittle knowledge of the argument regarding God as the only God in my proof, thanks for pointing it out.
It goes a little as follows;
1. God is perfect.
2. It is more perfect to be the only perfect being in existance.
3. Therefore, God (if perfection is accepted as an attribute) must be the only God.
I’ll now add that clause to main clause 2.
Many thanks,
Sam
public boolean perfect;
Either it’s perfect or it’s not, but there is nothing better than perfect, and if a is closer to perfection than b, then all we know is that b is imperfect.
Human perception is very limited, so something that appears perfect to us may be imperfect. For example, an angel, which is a purely spiritual being (if I understand correctly) may appear perfect to a Human, but it isn’t, as God is better. So what I’m saying is that just because someone experienced what they believed to be a divine revelation doesn’t mean that it’s real, and even if it is real, they wouldn’t be able to tell the type of being that revealed itself to them.
Hi yman,
I have update the post and clarified certain areas, I hope this is to your approval.
As for your talk of perfection as a boolean attribute, you are quite correct. This is in fact what Anselm’s argument hinges around. There is a hierachy of ‘greatness’, with perfection being the highest point. It is greater for God to be the only God than not. Thus, if he was not, he would not be perfect.
Thanks,
Sam