John Platko wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

John Platko wrote: I think an English (or language of choice) composition test would suffice.

What would the criteria be?

Demonstrating the ability to create entirely new ideas is something I've asked several idealists to do and none have managed even simple ideas. The Creator would surely have to be capable of that, having no source of inspiration and no pre-exiting structures or culture to draw from in original feats of creation That might have to be called a miracle test.

I was thinking something a bit more basic, like being able to deliver the word of God in a way that anyone with normal ears and/or normal eyes could hear and understand. That would truly be a miracle test.

Are you assuming the "the word of God" is something ordinarilly incomprehensible to humans but is made to be comprehended in content and yet recognisably haveing an incomprehensible nature?
Because if people just understood it it would not prove anything - "even a child could understand it". Looks like a contradiction to me.
And there is the problem of deepity. People can say all sorts of vacuous deepties that may seem profound but really aren't. It's no good "the word of God" seeming deep, seeming to be understood, but not actially meaning much.

GrahamH wrote:

John Platko wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

John Platko wrote: I think an English (or language of choice) composition test would suffice.

What would the criteria be?

Demonstrating the ability to create entirely new ideas is something I've asked several idealists to do and none have managed even simple ideas. The Creator would surely have to be capable of that, having no source of inspiration and no pre-exiting structures or culture to draw from in original feats of creation That might have to be called a miracle test.

I was thinking something a bit more basic, like being able to deliver the word of God in a way that anyone with normal ears and/or normal eyes could hear and understand. That would truly be a miracle test.

Are you assuming the "the word of God" is something ordinarilly incomprehensible to humans but is made to be comprehended in content and yet recognisably haveing an incomprehensible nature?
Because if people just understood it it would not prove anything - "even a child could understand it". Looks like a contradiction to me.
And there is the problem of deepity. People can say all sorts of vacuous deepties that may seem profound but really aren't. It's no good "the word of God" seeming deep, seeming to be understood, but not actially meaning much.

I agree with that. I'm looking for a word of God that is clear enough that just about anyone can understand it, in the same way they can understand a high school physics book, and it gives a message that when read generally makes people believe it came from God - because of the substance of the message, not the deepty quality of the message. I gather from his comments that Jamest thinks the book of Thomas somehow has that quality. Hopefully he will explain to us exactly why he rates that book so high.

Doing so would prove William James wrong who attributed to the mystical these two qualities:
from

Ineffability —" no adequate report of its contents can be given in words. […] its quality must be directly experienced; it cannot be imparted or transferred to others. […] mystical states are more like states of feeling than like states of intellect. No one can make clear to another who has never had a certain feeling, in what the quality or worth of it consists."

Noetic quality —"Although so similar to states of feeling, mystical states seem to those who experience them to be also states of knowledge. They are states of insight into depths of truth unplumbed by the discursive intellect. They are illuminations, revelations, full of significance and importance, all inarticulate though they remain; and as a rule they carry with them a curious sense of authority for after-time."

So according to James, we're dealing with knowledge that can't be expressed in words. Perhaps the onus should be on God, fleshy or otherwise, to come up with the right words that are clear enough for people to understand.

He could just magic it into our heads if he wanted.

laklak wrote:He could just magic it into our heads if he wanted.

That might short circuit our God given free will to choose to read it or not to read it.

John Platko wrote:choose to read it or not to read it.

Well, now you're making it more complicated.

John Platko wrote:Perhaps the onus should be on God, fleshy or otherwise, to come up with the right words that are clear enough for people to understand.

You don't seem to know on whom to place the onus. That's OK, because you don't know what the message is, either. Suddenly you want the words to be so clear that it's up to someone else whether or not to read them. You can wish your life away, John, but most of all, you seem to wish that you had some words to give to somebody else.

Who's supposed to convince me? I've already got people telling me the message is so clear, I just have to read it.

John Platko wrote:...
So according to James, we're dealing with knowledge that can't be expressed in words.

What, like the snowboard commentary I subjected myself to recently?

Perhaps the onus should be on God, fleshy or otherwise, to come up with the right words that are clear enough for people to understand.

You want your imaginary friend to come up with the "right words" to reveal itself unambiguously to someone else's brain?

Cito di Pense wrote:

John Platko wrote:choose to read it or not to read it.

Well, now you're making it more complicated.

John Platko wrote:Perhaps the onus should be on God, fleshy or otherwise, to come up with the right words that are clear enough for people to understand.

You don't seem to know on whom to place the onus. That's OK, because you don't know what the message is, either. Suddenly you want the words to be so clear that it's up to someone else whether or not to read them. You can wish your life away, John,

that doesn't work.

but most of all, you seem to wish that you had some words to give to somebody else.

Surely I've already tossed a sufficient number of words your way by now.

newolder wrote:

John Platko wrote:...
So according to James, we're dealing with knowledge that can't be expressed in words.

What, like the snowboard commentary I subjected myself to recently?

Perhaps the onus should be on God, fleshy or otherwise, to come up with the right words that are clear enough for people to understand.

You want your imaginary friend to come up with the "right words" to reveal itself unambiguously to someone else's brain?

We don't need to restrict ourselves to my imaginary friend(s). The imaginary friend of the candidate imbuded with the Christ persona needs to get the job done.

John Platko wrote:...
We don't need to restrict ourselves to my imaginary friend(s). The imaginary friend of the candidate imbuded with the Christ persona needs to get the job done.

How does derestriction to the imaginary friend of an imagined character get the job done?

newolder wrote:

John Platko wrote:...
We don't need to restrict ourselves to my imaginary friend(s). The imaginary friend of the candidate imbuded with the Christ persona needs to get the job done.

How does derestriction to the imaginary friend of an imagined character get the job done?

I'm thinking that only the candidted imbuded with the Christ persona can answer that. And we'll know they're the one because the job will get done.

John Platko wrote:

newolder wrote:

John Platko wrote:...
We don't need to restrict ourselves to my imaginary friend(s). The imaginary friend of the candidate imbuded with the Christ persona needs to get the job done.

How does derestriction to the imaginary friend of an imagined character get the job done?

I'm thinking that only the candidted imbuded with the Christ persona can answer that. And we'll know they're the one because the job will get done.

How does the candidate verify his own Christ status? The difficulty being we can have strong convictions and sense of profundity. It can all seem to make perfect sense, and you may feel that you could explain it, but when you try people look askance and are not convinced. It doesn't seem enough to 'just know' you are the Messiah. There are plenty of people who have that but fail your test, and any miraculous test.

John Platko wrote:

newolder wrote:

John Platko wrote:...
We don't need to restrict ourselves to my imaginary friend(s). The imaginary friend of the candidate imbuded with the Christ persona needs to get the job done.

How does derestriction to the imaginary friend of an imagined character get the job done?

I'm thinking that only the candidted imbuded with the Christ persona can answer that. And we'll know they're the one because the job will get done.

Some guy will get the idea that they are, in fact, an imagined figure from the past and we'll know that he actually is who he imagines he is because we'll all get to have the same imaginary friend simultaneously and without thinking about it. Yeah, riiiiight. Caution!, rabbit holes ahead.

That could work. The candidate AND EVERYONE ELSE just know he is The One. Everything understood without the nonsense, doubt and difficult questions.
I suppose there will be some free will objection to that. This is not something that's supposed to pinned down.

Sounds more like something Charlie Brooker would write for an episode of Black Mirror.

GrahamH wrote:

John Platko wrote:

newolder wrote:

John Platko wrote:...
We don't need to restrict ourselves to my imaginary friend(s). The imaginary friend of the candidate imbuded with the Christ persona needs to get the job done.

How does derestriction to the imaginary friend of an imagined character get the job done?

I'm thinking that only the candidted imbuded with the Christ persona can answer that. And we'll know they're the one because the job will get done.

How does the candidate verify his own Christ status? The difficulty being we can have strong convictions and sense of profundity. It can all seem to make perfect sense, and you may feel that you could explain it, but when you try people look askance and are not convinced. It doesn't seem enough to 'just know' you are the Messiah. There are plenty of people who have that but fail your test, and any miraculous test.

Maybe it should be something like the way evaluate the truth of global warming. Not ever scientist has to agee but the vast majority does.

Also, as I've been pondering some of the things Cito said while on my walk, I think there can be atheist candidates for Christ/Saviour/Reedemer too. Perhaps we can come up with a general test which will work for all flavors of Christ persona.

newolder wrote:

John Platko wrote:

newolder wrote:

John Platko wrote:...
We don't need to restrict ourselves to my imaginary friend(s). The imaginary friend of the candidate imbuded with the Christ persona needs to get the job done.

How does derestriction to the imaginary friend of an imagined character get the job done?

I'm thinking that only the candidted imbuded with the Christ persona can answer that. And we'll know they're the one because the job will get done.

Some guy will get the idea that they are, in fact, an imagined figure from the past and we'll know that he actually is who he imagines he is because we'll all get to have the same imaginary friend simultaneously and without thinking about it. Yeah, riiiiight. Caution!, rabbit holes ahead.

Well, it is not yet a fully baked idea - there are wrinkles to be ironed out.

Not yet fully baked? You haven't even turned on the oven yet!

Chuffin Nora...

Fallible wrote:Chuffin Nora...

I don't know about Nora but surely psychology has sussed out the persona of Christ by now. How would a psychologist distinguish a genuine Chirist from some dellusional psychotic thinking they are Christ if they walked into their office?

John Platko wrote:...

Well, it is not yet a fully baked idea - there are wrinkles to be ironed out.

If you dropped it into a Wolf-Rayert star for a million years it wouldn't get baked enough to pass muster. There's no objection to philosophical recipes as such but to abandon everyday sprinkles for fairy dust, leprechaun spit or some other 'megamagic' ingredient is always a mistake.