Ah, so if the answer for you is "I don't know what a god is," then the justification for their believing that an experience took place with God is another's to judge.Same question I've been asking, to no avail.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Ah, so if the answer for you is "I don't know what a god is," then the justification for their believing that an experience took place with God is another's to judge.Same question I've been asking, to no avail.
Ah, so if the answer for you is "I don't know what a god is," then the justification for their believing that an experience took place with God is another's to judge.
But it would be meaningless to you. For instance, let's say I have a particular concept of what "God" is, and if I claim as justification of my experience of this thing a detailed account of my experience of this thing, where does that leave you?Entirely so, I'm just asking what that justification is.
But it would be meaningless to you. For instance, let's say I have a particular concept of what "God" is, and if I claim as justification of my experience of this thing a detailed account of my experience of this thing, where does that leave you?
If you have an experience of God, does that prove the existence of God? Why or why not?
I'm sorry; I didn't mean to sound belligerent. Why wouldn't it be meaningless to you, if you have no concept of "a god"? Or to put it another way, you would simply have to chalk up the experience to something else --you would have no choice.Why the belligerence? Why do you say it would be meaningless, I'm just wanting to know what the exeperience is and why it is related to a god.
What is the justification for believing the experience took place with a god?
To quote a professor who would bellow into my left ear for 50 minutes straightIf you have an experience of God, does that prove the existence of God? Why or why not?
What class? Surely it's relevance is entirely relative and case-specific.To quote a professor who would bellow into my left ear for 50 minutes straight
Anecdotal evidence means nothing.
It is relevant in almost every field.What class? Surely it's relevance is entirely relative and case-specific.
If you have an experience of God, does that prove the existence of God? Why or why not?
If you have an experience of Leprechauns, does that prove the existence of Leprechauns? Why or why not?
What is the justification for believing the experience took place with a god?
Absolutely not. It's not even evidence for god. Using this logic, we could presume that it's also evidence for the flying spaghetti monster, angels, aliens, demons, dead loved ones and thousands of other mythical entities created in the span of human history. There's evidence to the contrary scientific explanation, which makes simple and obvious sense; the "touch of god" is explained away by the brain shooting itself up with dopamine and serotonine. The same thing happens when hugging or kissing a loved one, for example. The only prerequisite is that one must believe it to be true first, then the brain will dish out the chemicals. So, obviously those who "experience god" are going to claim it to be god; it's a form of self-hypnosis (we all accept hypnosis as fact, right?). To think that one's feelings are of the touch of a god, let alone a specific figure in organized religion, is flat-out ridiculous.
FYI, logican posted his remark eight years ago and hasn't posted here since Aug 17, 2011.What is the justification in believing your question is relevant to actual event?
FYI, logican posted his remark 8 years ago and hasn't posted here since Aug 17, 2011.