Religious experience

[Zhavric]

This op is directed towards individuals who claim they've "experienced god" or had an experience where they were "touched by god" etc.

We're going to assume that you had some experience that moved you; that inspired awe / joy / wisdom / etc in some way that you cannot explain except with god.

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.

[HelioPrime]

What would quality?

Lacking any type of equipment save their own words or writing what can anyone prove.

If anyone does come forward prove on an individual basis they didn't experience anything.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: HelioPrime What would quality?

Not my problem. Come up with evidence or we go by what science tells us because science does have evidence.

[Pegs]

Quote by: HelioPrime If anyone does come forward prove on an individual basis they didn't experience anything.

That was not the point of the OP. The fact that people experience things in their lives is not denied by anybody. What (I believe) Zhavric is asking is the reasoning behind the appliction of the experience as evidence for the existence of a god or gods.

Thus, it is not the experience which is being doubted, but the interpretation of it.

[HelioPrime]

Evidence for every individual case?

Your claiming that each person has to prove their feelings in a way it can be scientifically verified. Yet as your asserted in past threats there is no scientific evidence to suggest experiences. So you not really asking a question and more just trying to twist the debate into a victory by asking the wrong question.

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: Pegs That was not the point of the OP. The fact that people experience things in their lives is not denied by anybody. What (I believe) Zhavric is asking is the reasoning behind the appliction of the experience as evidence for the existence of a god or gods. Thus, it is not the experience which is being doubted, but the interpretation of it.

The interpretation is beyond science to understand because science can't measure what isn't objective and factual, nor can it go back in time and judge claims from the past.

[Pegs]

Let me put it like this:

I see the Sun rise: experience

I interpret it as Odin riding across the sky on a winged rhinoceros: Interpretation


Are you suggesting that science cannot invalidate my interpretation?

[Zhavric]

Quote by: HelioPrime The interpretation is beyond science to understand because science can't measure what isn't objective and factual.

As pegs pointed out, Christians and theists claiming their experiences are from god is objective and factual. Either god caused your experience or he didn't. Are you content with stating "I want to believe this really amazing feeling I had was from god" or do you instead say, "This really amazing feeling I had was from god" ? If it's the first, then the debate is over because you're not actually claiming your experience was caused by god. If you're claiming the second example, then you need to provide evidence.

[Maryjane]

I asked this question once, I never got an answer. Perhaps you will have better luck.

[HelioPrime]

I don't think there is anyone her with an experience not assisted by LSD or some other mind altering substance.

Out of interest what criteria would you consider needed by the theist.

[Jagged]

Argument: People feel things via chemicals going through their brains. Therefore, things as abstract and emotional as feeling can be seen scientifically through the physical workings of the brain.


Now, compare these two statements: 1) Jerry says he felt a feeling so divine and powerful that it must have been divine. and 2) Doctors found hallucinogen-causing chemicals in Jerry's brain of such unusually high potency that it must have been called by a divine cause.

I'm saying that both statements are pretty much the same (except for the doctor reference, but you get the point). All registered feelings must be caused by physical workings in the brain. It is difficult to conceptualize how something as abstract and non-physical as a feeling can be manifested through chemicals in the brain, but once this concept has been established the idea of God coming along to sprinkle chemicals in your head appears rather absurd .

[ZNFYRH]

Jagged

On top of that...

Physical workings in the brain are caused by outside stimulus.

This relies on how the brain interprets that stimulus.

The quick and dirty example is looking at another person. One person finds them attractive, one doesn't, even though they are looking at the same thing. They might not even consciously make the evaluation.

Just as two people could see the same thing, but their brains interpret it differently, trigger different chemicals, and you suddenly have religious rapture standing next to normality.

The different sense organs also have varying sensitivities. Some people are more sensitive to greater wavelengths of light, frequencies of sound, more particles per volume of taste and scent, etc.

They might literally be sensing something we don't. Thus the chemical response, etc.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: ZNFYRH Jagged On top of that... Physical workings in the brain are caused by outside stimulus.

Nope. You're wrong. The workings of the brain are self contained. The only influence on them comes from chemicals ingested or actual damage.

Regardless, everything the brain does is a result of neural pathways firing in a specific order.

The quick and dirty example is looking at another person. One person finds them attractive, one doesn't, even though they are looking at the same thing. They might not even consciously make the evaluation.

That's not "external stimulation". The other person doesn't send out telepathic waves and force another person's brain to see them a specific way. The brain receives signals from the eyes and neurons fire.

What theists seem to believe is there is some god magic phenomenon that causes us to feel things. The point of this thread is for them to prove that. Get on topic or get out.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: HelioPrime I don't think there is anyone her with an experience not assisted by LSD or some other mind altering substance. Out of interest what criteria would you consider needed by the theist.

Already addressed this question in post 3. What is it about volconvo theists & agnostics and ignoring arguments?

[Winter wind]

This op is directed towards individuals who claim they've "experienced god" or had an experience where they were "touched by god" etc. We're going to assume that you had some experience that moved you; that inspired awe / joy / wisdom / etc in some way that you cannot explain except with god. 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.

You've got to watch Contact! Jodie Foster is amazing. This clip will do. And what's great is that a character uses some of the exact words you used.

The main character is this woman who is looking for extra-terrestrial life and finds it. Based off of the Carl Sagan novel.

YouTube - Contact

The are a couple of segments in the clip, but the first and last are most importent.

This is the rest of the last scene.

ELLIE Is it possible that it didn't happen, yes. As a scientist I must concede that, I must volunteer that. KITZ Wait a minute, let me get this straight. You admit that you have absolutely no physical evidence to back up your story? ELLIE Yes. KITZ You admit that you very well may have hallucinated this whole thing. ELLIE Yes. KITZ You admit that if you were in our position, you will respond with exactly the same degree of incredulity and skepticism? ELLIE Yes. KITZ (Yelling) Then why don't you simply withdraw your testimony and concede that this journey to the center of the galaxy, in fact, never took place?! ELLIE Because I can't. (mummers from crowd) I had an experience I can't prove, I can't even explain it, but everything that I know as a human being, everything that I am tells me that it was real. I was part of something wonderful, something that changed me forever; a vision of the Universe that tells us undeniable how tiny, and insignificant, and how rare and precious we all are. A vision that tells us we belong to something that is greater than ourselves. That we are not, that none of us are alone. I wish I could share that. I wish that everyone, if even for one moment, could feel that awe, and humility, and the hope, but... that continues to be my wish.

A faith experience is impossible to prove. It's like the first clip, you can't prove you love someone. You ask the impossible, my friend.

And actually watch the clip please!

[Jack]

...everything that I am tells me...a vision of the Universe that tells us...A vision that tells us...

She had an experience then proceeds to interpret that experience, a subjective analysis of an objective experience. Theists interpret experiences as signs from the gods. Atheists and other non-believers suggest there is more than one way to interpret those experiences.

[rez]

Quote by: Winter wind You've got to watch Contact! Jodie Foster is amazing. This clip will do. And what's great is that a character uses some of the exact words you used.

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....

A faith experience is impossible to prove.

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?

Since they have the blue prints to build the time machine, then how about they send someone else in to double check?

It's like the first clip, you can't prove you love someone.

um yes you can.

[ZNFYRH]

To be fair, the movie was a crappy adaptation from the book.

In the book, six people were in the machine.

It was much more clear that she wasn't hallucinating.

It made the scene where she is questioned so much more powerful.

But then again, the whole point of the book was that until humans are ready to accept someone's experience without needing proof of it all the time, humans aren't ready for the rest of the universe.

[rez]

Quote by: ZNFYRH To be fair, the movie was a crappy adaptation from the book. In the book, six people were in the machine. It was much more clear that she wasn't hallucinating. It made the scene where she is questioned so much more powerful. But then again, the whole point of the book was that until humans are ready to accept someone's experience without needing proof of it all the time, humans aren't ready for the rest of the universe.

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.

[ZNFYRH]

True.

Carl Sagan wrote that because he believed that belief in the enormity and wonder of the universe, scientifically, was no more strange than a theist believing in God.

Bad example for this thread.