Religious experience

[Zhavric]

So, that's it? No one here can prove their religious experience was caused by god? Is that really your answer? Really?

[HelioPrime]

Who here has said they've had divine experience anyhow? I don't count the drug use threads.

[Winter wind]

Quote by: rez Wow. Using a science fiction movie to back up your argument has got to be the lamest thing I ever saw. I might as well site the movie JFK to prove that Oswald did not act alone....

ok ok fine, but bare me out.

I have to do a paper on Carl Sagan and I like the movie. But my point was that this was an example of an semi-faith experience.

Quote by: rez A faith experience is totally different then what Jodie Foster in the movie experienced. The people in the movie specifically contacted an alien race. There was instructions on how to build a space machine. They actually went through and built the machine. Of course, since its a freaking movie I can infer anything I damn well please. For instance, what were the scientists that built the machine expecting the machine to do? All these scientists built this machine without knowing how it worked? If they didn't know how it worked, then how did they build it? If they did know how it worked, then why would there need to be a trial to second guess Jodie Foster?

All fair points, except for the "it wasn't a faith experience." To her, it was a humbling, powerful moment that she couldn't prove to the rest of the world. The expository stuff matters very little.

Quote by: rez um yes you can.

try. I think I can refute your argument.

Quote by: rez And the point I am trying to make is that there is much more proof in this example then there is from theists about god being real.

Not if you cut the movie down to that trial scene. Kitz presents a more likely example and much more plausible possibility to Ellie's experience. What she says is hard to prove right that moment without words.

The most importent argument I would like to make is, trying to prove a faith experience is like trying to prove love. I would like to hear an attempt at such proof.

I think it is fair to say that if you can't prove you love someone and still say religious experiences should be provable if they exist, then you must also say that love shouldn't exist.

[Prometheus]

These type of debates are always frustrating. Both sides claiming that the other has the burden of proof, each rejecting the other's definition of what constitutes proof etc. etc. This issue will not be resolved in this fashion because both sides are perpetrating logical fallacies and not really listening to the other side. I've seen it 100 times if I've seen it once.

Before I get into my point, let me admit my bias as a theist who believes in a God who exists in the same literal and physical sence as you and I.

Though these type of debates are normally frustrating to me, I must admit that it is probably the "beleivers" who cause this to happen. The agnostics/atheists wouldn't feel a need to argue so vehamently against God if the theists weren't to bloody determined to impose their will/beleifs on others. You don't see people vehamently denying the Tooth Fairy or Santa. Why? Because you don't have politics based on, society formed around, moral judgement passed etc etc regarding the Tooth Fairy and Santa Clause.

That said, I will see if I can offer some comments that will provide a little bit of middle ground that both sides can come to terms with.

As a believer in God, I would never seek to prove the existence of the divine. All I can say is that I have had experiences convincing me of the reality of God above and beyond something simply internal to my 5 sences. I can only way that for myself. My experiances were for me and even if I could explain them adaquately and convincingly, it may or may not be enough to convince someone else. The quest for God is personal. It can't be given or transmitted.

This probably sounds like a cop out, but follow me on a little hypothetical. Suppose my concept of God, that he has placed us here as a test of our innate propensity to seek him and follow him. Under such a premise, aquireing a knowledge of God is part of the test, and it would be logical to make it such that a person can't "cheat" on the test by gaining their knowledge of God's reality through someone else's experience. If it were possible to prove God's existence over some internet forum, it would short-circuit one of the prime purposes of this life.

The point is that you can only prove God's existence to yourself. This is normally not easy and how to do so is another huge topic if you are actually interested in it.

When an atheist asks a theist to prove God's existence, he is asking what the theist believes to be impossible. This is where the two sides meet their impasse.

So here is the middle ground that I offer.

Atheists need to recognize that theists cannot, and don't claim to be able to prove god's existence to others. Atheists need to recognize that this is logical.

Theists need to stop trying to impose their will and beliefs on others. Theists need to realize that atheists are not bad people and stop being disdainfull and condescending and generally very unchristian.

[rez]

First of all, welcome back.

Quote by: Prometheus These type of debates are always frustrating. Both sides claiming that the other has the burden of proof, each rejecting the other's definition of what constitutes proof etc. etc. This issue will not be resolved in this fashion because both sides are perpetrating logical fallacies and not really listening to the other side. I've seen it 100 times if I've seen it once.

What is the logical fallacy?

The argument is either accept all religions or reject all religions. Either accept all gods or reject them all...

I see no logical fallacy.

Before I get into my point, let me admit my bias as a theist who believes in a God who exists in the same literal and physical sence as you and I.

Humans sure have powerful imaginations.

Though these type of debates are normally frustrating to me, I must admit that it is probably the "beleivers" who cause this to happen. The agnostics/atheists wouldn't feel a need to argue so vehamently against God if the theists weren't to bloody determined to impose their will/beleifs on others. You don't see people vehamently denying the Tooth Fairy or Santa. Why? Because you don't have politics based on, society formed around, moral judgement passed etc etc regarding the Tooth Fairy and Santa Clause.

Yep

As a believer in God, I would never seek to prove the existence of the divine. All I can say is that I have had experiences convincing me of the reality of God above and beyond something simply internal to my 5 sences. I can only way that for myself. My experiances were for me and even if I could explain them adaquately and convincingly, it may or may not be enough to convince someone else. The quest for God is personal. It can't be given or transmitted.

So then I guess you just gotta keep it to yourself.

This probably sounds like a cop out, but follow me on a little hypothetical.

well ok, as long as you are not trying to get me to buy anything...

Suppose my concept of God, that he has placed us here as a test of our innate propensity to seek him and follow him.

And what is the point of that? Why does this god have the same exact characterics as every human on this planet? Don't you find it a little strange that this god has the exact same desires as every man does?

What is more of a real possibility here. Man's own personal desire to be praised and worshiped or some magical spirit that wants to be praised and worshiped?

Under such a premise, aquireing a knowledge of God is part of the test and it would be logical to make it such that a person can't "cheat" on the test by gaining their knowledge of God's reality through someone else's experience.

So then how else would someone gain the experience? Ohhhhh I knoowwwww you have to start going to church on sundays and giving a donation.......oh I get it...

I knew I would have to buy something...

If it were possible to prove God's existence over some internet forum, it would short-circuit one of the prime purposes of this life.

And what is that purpose? To take a test?

The point is that you can only prove God's existence to yourself.

Because god only exists in your own imagination....

When an atheist asks a theist to prove God's existence, he is asking what the theist believes to be impossible. This is where the two sides meet their impasse.

The funny thing is theists are not very smart. Many actually try to use science to prove the existence of god (ie Intelligent Design).

Atheists need to recognize that theists cannot, and don't claim to be able to prove god's existence to others. Atheists need to recognize that this is logical.

Maybe some theists don't....

think watchmaker analogy....

Theists need to stop trying to impose their will and beliefs on others. Theists need to realize that atheists are not bad people and stop being disdainfull and condescending and generally very unchristian.

[Kuldeep]

Has the following question any similarity with that asked in OP:

How can anybody prove that rest of the people see the world exactly same as he ??? Example: I am seeing a red pen. How can it be proved that second person sees exactly similar pen as well ??? !!! NO. I am serious.

At least, I would not be able to !!! Can anybody??

If anybody can give a method to do that, then same method can be used to prove a devine experienced by me !!!

[Prometheus]

Quote by: rez What is the logical fallacy?

exibit A - the False Dilemma:

The argument is either accept all religions or reject all religions. Either accept all gods or reject them all...

textbook example

Humans sure have powerful imaginations.

This is another example of why these threads go nowhere. I made a simple statement of belief so that I could be fair by admitting my biases coming in to the discussion. I was not telling you what to believe. I was not disparaging your belief. I was not preaching to anyone.

And you return it with mockery.

Very poor form. It undermines any intellectual credit you may have had.

And what is the point of that? Why does this god have the same exact characterics as every human on this planet? Don't you find it a little strange that this god has the exact same desires as every man does?

Why does a parent have the same charactaristics as it's child? This is no theological mystery.

What is more of a real possibility here. Man's own personal desire to be praised and worshiped or some magical spirit that wants to be praised and worshiped?

A logical counter-hypothisis to the God hypothisis. A scientist would test the hypothisis to figure out which is the case. That's what I did. But I can't transmit the experimental results to you. You have to do that yourself.

So then how else would someone gain the experience? Ohhhhh I knoowwwww you have to start going to church on sundays and giving a donation.......oh I get it... I knew I would have to buy something...

More sarcasm. Shame.

Building a relationship with God dosen't require a building or money. Those may come much later as a demonstration of devotion, but I would not tell you to go to a building or pull out your wallett to contact God.

And what is that purpose? To take a test?

One of them, yes. I'm not going to preach at you, or dump the whole doctorinal background on you because you would be unable to appreciate it, but this isn't so illogical if there is a God.

If there is a God, do you really think that this life is what he made us for? How could a loving God create us for this to be the primary stage in our existance? This world sucks. It is merely transitoy. Yes, a test. And a truely valuable test is never easy.

Because god only exists in your own imagination....

I don't find this offensive, because I know that this is what you truely believe, but if you want to have civil discussions with educated people, you really should try to make yourself more pallatable.

The funny thing is theists are not very smart. Many actually try to use science to prove the existence of god (ie Intelligent Design). Maybe some theists don't.... think watchmaker analogy....

Not all theists are very deep thinkers. Not all people have the intellect or the inclination to think things through like you or I do.

Careful that you don't find yourself in another Fallacy: Guilt By Association

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Prometheus Before I get into my point, let me admit my bias as a theist who believes in a God who exists in the same literal and physical sence as you and I. ... The point is that you can only prove God's existence to yourself.

These two statements contradict one another.

If god exists in the same literal and physical senses that you and I exist in then god can be proven to anyone just as I can offer evidence for my existence to you. You could call me, meet me, take DNA samples, shake my hand, read what I've written, etc. Yet, you do a 180 and claim that god CAN'T be proven to other people.

Your argument contradicts itself. You want to have it both ways: a literal real god that's been evidenced and an insubstantial god that doesn't require evidence. Sorry, but if you want god to be real you have to prove it. It's your claim. You support it.

Atheists need to recognize that theists cannot, and don't claim to be able to prove god's existence to others. Atheists need to recognize that this is logical.

Of course it's not logical. If you can't prove your god exists then he doesn't exist. It's that simple.

Theists need to stop trying to impose their will and beliefs on others. Theists need to realize that atheists are not bad people and stop being disdainfull and condescending and generally very unchristian.

I'd settle for "theists need to embrace intellectual honesty and not use a different set of rules for evaluating the evidence of their own god".

That being said, do you have any evidence any religious experience was caused by your god or do you simply choose to label some experience "caused by god" because you've been trained by other theists to do so?

[Prometheus]

Quote by: Zhavric These two statements contradict one another. If god exists in the same literal and physical senses that you and I exist in then god can be proven to anyone just as I can offer evidence for my existence to you. You could call me, meet me, take DNA samples, shake my hand, read what I've written, etc. Yet, you do a 180 and claim that god CAN'T be proven to other people. Your argument contradicts itself. You want to have it both ways: a literal real god that's been evidenced and an insubstantial god that doesn't require evidence.

Great point. If I was saying that God was just like a human living here on earth, you would have a point. I was saying that God was equally as physically real as you or I. That dosesn't mean God will behave like you or I do.

God is an incredibally powerful being who chooses to be evidanced only on an individual basis. It's not that God is mystical or etherial, it's simply that *he* chooses where and when he will be revealed. This revelation is not something that can be forced.

You may not believe that this is true, but it is logically consistent.

Sorry, but if you want god to be real you have to prove it. It's your claim. You support it.

A thing is real whether or not one has the empirical evidence to prove it to others. Reality is not dependent on it being proved. The world was round when everyone believed it was flat. It was round when only one person thought it was round but couldn't prove it to everyone (or at least couldn't convince them to accept the type of proof he did have).

Of course it's not logical. If you can't prove your god exists then he doesn't exist. It's that simple.

One who calls another "illogical" and then makes a cardinal and obvious logical blunder, he loses credability. You are asserting that lack of evidance constitutes counterevidence. This is a simple and gaping logical flaw.

I'd settle for "theists need to embrace intellectual honesty and not use a different set of rules for evaluating the evidence of their own god".

I would agree that many theists don't think of their beliefs in god with scientific, hypothesis based reason or logic. That dosen't undermine the God theory. Most calculus students probably couldn't proove the fundamental theorm of calculus. Many mathamatics students never look deeply into why an equation works - they just plug in algorithmically and take the answer with no understanding of why or how. Guess what - thier calculations still work.

That being said, do you have any evidence any religious experience was caused by your god or do you simply choose to label some experience "caused by god" because you've been trained by other theists to do so?

I logical countertheory to the God theory. Only experimentation would differentiate it. And I can't transmit my experimental results, so you would have to seek it on your own.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Prometheus Great point. If I was saying that God was just like a human living here on earth, you would have a point. I was saying that God was equally as physically real as you or I. That dosesn't mean God will behave like you or I do.

Irrelevant.

Prometheus, there are only two kinds of questions in this world: scientific questions and non-scientific questions.

A non-scientific question is anything subjective that doesn't have a definite answer. "Was that a good ballgame?" isn't a scientific question because the answer is arbitrary and will change from person to person. "Was there a ballgame?" is a scientific question. Either a ballgame took place or it didn't. One or the other. Not both. We can use science to determine it. Even in situations where our technology is limited, questions with a definite answer are still scientific. For example, for centuries we had no idea what the sun was made of. We couldn't get to it. Couldn't measure it in a test tube. Could barely look at it. It seemed a question we'd never answer. But that doesn't mean it ceased to be a scientific question. In our uncertainty, we made predictions and eliminated the ridiculous ("The sun is NOT a fiery chariot of Apollo."). Eventually, the technology came along and we answered it.

That being said, you seem to want the issue of god to have the best of both worlds. You want god to be something subjective and opinion based, yet still reap the benefits as though god is proven. Go back to the ballgame example. Imagine if you asked me, "Did the Indians play the Mets in 1987? If so, on what date?" and I answered, "Well, each person has to decide that for themselves. You can prove it for yourself, but not for other people."

How is that any different than what you originally stated? Stating that god exists "outside of time and space" doesn't cut it, either. To continue with the analogy, it would be like stating, "1987 was in the past and outside our city. There's no way to know for sure." Even if it's in the past and happened far away, it either happened or didn't happen. It's not a matter of personal opinion nor is it something each person can prove or not prove for themself. It's a fact one way or the other.

God is the same way.

God is an incredibally powerful being who chooses to be evidanced only on an individual basis.

Your own bible (assuming you're Christian) doesn't agree with you. God reveals himself to plenty of people including the Egyptians... nor do the Egyptians (or the Israelites) suddenly become robbed of free will when Frogs fall from the sky. So, I'll entertain no nonsense about maintaining free will.

It's not that God is mystical or etherial, it's simply that *he* chooses where and when he will be revealed. This revelation is not something that can be forced.

I never said it had to be "forced". I'm inviting you to argue honestly and provide evidence for your claim.

You may not believe that this is true, but it is logically consistent.

Of course it's not logically consistant. Logic is by definition demonstrable. Demonstrate it's logical or concede the point.

A thing is real whether or not one has the empirical evidence to prove it to others. Reality is not dependent on it being proved.

Reality may be different from our perception of it, but we require evidence to support any claim of our reality. Human teleportation might be a reality in 50 years, but stating "Human beings can travel from place to place instantly" is still a false statement because there isn't enough evidence to prove it true and plenty of evidence showing it to be false.

The world was round when everyone believed it was flat. It was round when only one person thought it was round but couldn't prove it to everyone (or at least couldn't convince them to accept the type of proof he did have).

What you're overlooking here is the importance of evidence. It was evidence that proved the Earth is a sphere. It was evidence that proved the flat earthists to be mistaken. You, as a theist, are standing squarely on the side of the flat earthists. You believe in a bronze age explanation of our universe that's very obviously impossible. The evidence is glaring and obvious. The god hypothesis is simply too flawed to be anything but false.

One who calls another "illogical" and then makes a cardinal and obvious logical blunder, he loses credability. You are asserting that lack of evidance constitutes counterevidence. This is a simple and gaping logical flaw.

You're ignoring what's implied in the god hypothesis and what needs to be true for the hypothesis to even be possible. Consider this syllogism.

1) The claim "God exists and created the universe" is a scientific hypothesis. It either happened or it didn't happen. Let's call this hypothesis the god hypothesis.

2) For the god hypothesis to be possible (a necessary step before being true) the following must be true:

a) Energy can be created from nothing.
b) Intelligence can exist outside of a biological matrix (like the brain).

3) Conservation of energy derived from Physics tells us that energy is finite and cannot be created from nothing. Stating "Energy can pop into existence from nothing" is a false statement.

4) Biology has proven intelligence is a function of a biological matrix; neurons firing in patterns. Stating "intelligence can exist without a brain" is about as accurate as stating "Microsoft Word can function normally outside a computer".

5) Since two of god's necessary traits are impossible, the god hypothesis is false.

It's not logical to state "Energy can be created from nothing and intelligence exists outside of any sort of brain" so why imply it in a hypothesis? You've evidenced nothing that makes these claims possible.

I would agree that many theists don't think of their beliefs in god with scientific, hypothesis based reason or logic. That dosen't undermine the God theory.

It doesn't undermine the god hypothesis (it's not a theory) BECAUSE they don't think that way.

Most calculus students probably couldn't proove the fundamental theorm of calculus. Many mathamatics students never look deeply into why an equation works - they just plug in algorithmically and take the answer with no understanding of why or how. Guess what - thier calculations still work.

This is a terrible analogy.

First, kids taking a math class aren't told from infancy "You're a Calculaus-ist" and forced to base their lives around their belief in higher math. It's just a class not a decision on how to spend one's life. Second, math may work, but theism doesn''t. There isn't a shred of evidence to support it and volumes of scientific data (and common sense) showing how god is impossible.

I logical countertheory to the God [hypothesis]. Only experimentation would differentiate it. And I can't transmit my experimental results, so you would have to seek it on your own.

Then your argument and worldview is illogical and intellectually bankrupt. You've leapt to the conclusion a nonsensical unsupported hypothesis is true and are unwilling or unable to support your claim. What other conclusion can I draw?

I invite you to embrace intellectual honesty by doing one of the following:

A) Find a way to provide evidence for your claims and contine the debate.

B) Concede that whatever experience you had is the result of wishful thinking. Meaning you had some potent, yet mundane experience(s) which you attributed to god arbitrarily / without evidence. i.e. "I feel really good. It must be god." or "I had a really positive coincidence. It must be god." This would end the debate.

C) Table the issue of personal experience while you brainstorm how to provide evidence for it and instead provide evidence for the existence of god to continue the debate.

Please pick one or I will assume you're unable or unwilling to continue the debate / conceded.

[ZNFYRH]

Prometheus

You had it right in Post #27.

A fanatic theist or atheist will always present the argument as a False Dilemma because they think absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

Don't bother arguing any further. Just use the Ignore feature and save time.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: ZNFYRH Prometheus You had it right in Post #27. A fanatic theist or atheist will always present the argument as a False Dilemma because they think absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Don't bother arguing any further. Just use the Ignore feature and save time.

To give you some background, ZNF and Kame got tired of me asking questions neither could answer. Rather than debating like gentleman, they flamed me until the mods forced them to place me on ignore. It was all they could do to stay on Volconvo. Ever since then, all they can do is snipe and troll.

Pay no attention.

[HelioPrime]

I could walk into a room full of people and ask a question: "Is the moon made of rock and not cheese?"

Now the room is full of chinese who do not speak english. None of them can provide an answer. So lacking an answer does that mean that none of them has been able to prove the moon is rock and not cheese? So the moon must be made of cheese then.

Of course we know from outside sources the moon is most certainly made of rock.

This thread however asks people in a forum to describe a personal experience. I doubt anyone here is a brain specialist who can describe their experience in scientific detail. Or I even doubt anyone here has had such an experience. So lacking any details we the question remains unanswered.

Unanswered = unanswered, not false as Zhavric try's to paint it.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: HelioPrime This thread however asks people in a forum to describe a personal experience.

Incomplete. Reread the op:

The goal of this thread: prove your experience was, specifically, your god. The burden of proof you're working against is the science of the brain that tells us we have 5 senses that work by electro-chemical signals passing between neurons. You want us to believe otherwise? You want us to believe that we can "experience" god?

Prove it.

I doubt anyone here is a brain specialist who can describe their experience in scientific detail. Or I even doubt anyone here has had such an experience. So lacking any details we the question remains unanswered. Unanswered = unanswered, not false as Zhavric try's to paint it.

Typical volconvo reply: If you can't meet the burden of the op, just pretend it's something completely different.

If you are alleging that your experience was caused by your god (something theists often state), the point of this thread is to prove it was your god that caused your experience.

Provide evidence, concede, or don't post. Don't try to re-write the thread into something it's not.

[Matt W]

Zhravic, ZNFYRH, stop bickering. Stay on-topic and drop the baiting.

DO NOT RESPOND IN THIS THREAD TO THE PRECEDING MESSAGE. Please contact a member of the staff privately if you have any questions.

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: Zhavric Typical volconvo reply: If you can't meet the burden of the op, just pretend it's something completely different. If you are alleging that your experience was caused by your god (something theists often state), the point of this thread is to prove it was your god that caused your experience. Provide evidence, concede, or don't post. Don't try to re-write the thread into something it's not.

Using words from Matt above you baiting for fish you can't catch.

Your asking for direct evidence and proof as to "god" experiences from a group of people who don't appear to have had any such experience.

Your making a conclusion beforehand that these experiences are bogus, and use the fact nobody had provided anything contrary to backup your claim.

This reminds me of that overused riddle. If a tree falls in a forest and nobody is around to hear it does it make a sound.

I don't think a single religion has any claim that every member of it experiences "god" in some measurable way. Your just fishing for a disagreement where you can repeat the same lines you read from a book.