Quote:
|
Originally Posted by qprogeny79
right, but those "interior means" are necessarily subjective. you can either look outward with the light of reason (an objective method) or look inward to your own feelings (a subjective method). whether you call it gnosis, faith, revelation, or whatever, it all refers to the same thing: the reliance on your own feelings to "prove" things, which can't be done. that kind of epistemological method is tantamount to saying "i feel that god exists, so he must," which is a totally invalid way of demonstrating anything, let alone the metaphysical basis of ultimate reality.
|
You are making the assumption that if something is not capable of being proved by logic, that it is therefore relegated to the vagueness of "feelings." Mystical experience is not a vague feeling or a sentiment, nor is it subject to logic--it is the apprehension of the Real. Logic and science do not apprehend Reality, they describe our experience of the shared dream of the physical in relation to those elements of being which compose our personalities.
You are also supposing that the confines of human logic are sufficient to hold the infinitude of God, which is fallacious. You place logic above God, using it to demonstrate his non-existence. However, the limitations of the human intellect make it impossible for the intellect (or the feelings) to apprehend the divine in the first place, which is why your whole argument seems silly to me...
On the contrary, everything I am saying seems silly to you because of your individualism and materialist bias.