Empirical Evidence for God

[Ponder This]

But if you are experiencing an altered state of consciousness, how can you verify that what you're experiencing is actually real, as a-posed to a delusion?

I think that's an interesting question worth exploring.
Delusion is 'an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder'

Why would you assume that your perceptions in an "altered state of consciousness" are reliable?

I think that's a good question.
Reliable is 'consistently good in quality or performance; able to be trusted'.
So I think that the perceptions in an altered state of consciousness should be confirmed by what we accept as reality or rational argument before we describe them as being 'reliable'.

Right: a state where the brain is induced into a state of malfunction.

A 'malfunction' is 'a failure to function in a normal or satisfactory manner'. It seems that altered states of consciousness are not 'normal' but that they could be 'satisfactory'. It does not seem to me that you've stated a sufficient grounds to accept or reject the validity of an altered state of consciousness.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

have found on many an occasion that the universe can double as a mind, thus possessing its own consciousness.

How so?

How would you explain this to a child?

Exactly, it does not need to be objective to exist. One cannot describe God without reference to words like "One", "Supreme", "Spirit" etc...

Yes, we can. Since god is subjective and undefined, you can label it anything and it would still be god. A chair. Fire. Baby. Got to define its nature first before you describe it.

Would the observation of intelligent behaving reality and omens such as intelligent self-aware light count? I bet it would.

If I understood that, I could answer. How isvreality intelligent?

There was an appearance of intelligent behaving or self-aware light a number of times. This light "knew" what I was doing and thinking. Also, what I observed was absolute evil and its urge for me to die when my injury was critical. There was something distinct in the atmosphere and my experience. It was all during an altered state of consciousness in which universal oneness and my apprehension of it was attained.

You lost me.

 

[David T]

We would call that evidenced, from what you wrote.
Of course one can experience God, the idea that you can't, is an invented idea from faulty religious interpretation, and belief.
There can be different experiences, all inferring the existence of God.
The idea that there is only one type of divinity experience, is also wrong, and is simply the belief of certain 'mystics', and certain religious paradigms.

interpretation tends to not say what is but what we percieve what is.

 

[Ostronomos]

Just as much as your God is,yes.

Your attempts to insult 'my God', the only God, are futile as you do not know that He exists.

 

[Fool]

There exists empirical evidence for God but it is spiritual in nature. God is inaccessible by nature. An analogy would be that of entering another dimension in order to reach Him. As I have stated before, I have seen God once and experienced and witnessed His presence a number of times. Each and every time was during an altered state of consciousness. Now, there is the proposition of panpsychism as a possibility. But in this experience God would be observed as a universal consciousness as opposed to being understood to be specifically a Being that goes by the name God. A general manifestation of universal awareness in other words. But specifically speaking, evidence would appear as an identity that distributes itself over reality at large. Or it may appear to be within. Either way, it would be obvious to the observer that God is real.

this is just ex-nihilo in other words. god is natural but god isn't nature.

any dimension would be part of nature and natural.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your attempts to insult 'my God', the only God, are futile as you do not know that He exists.

Another unjustified claim by you. And where was the insult?

 

[Ostronomos]

How so?

How would you explain this to a child?

I would tell the child that reality is a vast, big mind with a big identity.

Yes, we can. Since god is subjective and undefined, you can label it anything and it would still be god. A chair. Fire. Baby. Got to define its nature first before you describe it.

I define God as the conscious universe manifesting itself at lower levels as well as higher.

If I understood that, I could answer. How isvreality intelligent?

Usually the behavior of something is a sign that it is intelligent or not. Reality, for example, would behave in non-random ways at times. Instead of strict blind nature as what inspires atheist arguments.

You lost me.

I simply mean that the atmosphere and environment had distinct metaphysical characteristics and behaviors during all of my altered states of conscious experiences.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I would tell the child that reality is a vast, big mind with a big identity.

Big identity?

I define God as the conscious universe manifesting itself at lower levels as well as higher.

What does that mean?

Whats a conscious universe?

Lower and higher levels?

Usually the behavior of something is a sign that it is intelligent or not. Reality, for example, would behave in non-random ways at times. Instead of strict blind nature as what inspires atheist arguments.

Lost me

I simply mean that the atmosphere and environment had distinct metaphysical characteristics and behaviors during all of my altered states of conscious experiences.

Im sorry. I dont get the language. After experience and observation, Id sum it up like this

1. We are alive. Everything is alive by energy-sun for example among other forms

2. Energy is how our bodies interact. How we feel. How we are connected. Spirit means the life/energy that is us. We exp. this directly. We are all spirits.

3. It is not supreme, higher, god just because we are heightened by these unseen exp. If anything, they define life itself. Its neutral.

4. The spirit/energy helps keep alive brain and thus, thoughts. We cant find words to describe the spirit (above). We depend on our religions, culture, spirituality to define it.

A. Its not deep nor higher . Its neutral

B. It can be tested. It does interact in front of us. It can be exper. Its not a mystery

C. It does not need to be worshiped. Its not external. Its not internal (something in us) it IS us. Not dual; its unity.

 

[Altfish]

There exists empirical evidence for God but it is spiritual in nature. God is inaccessible by nature. An analogy would be that of entering another dimension in order to reach Him. As I have stated before, I have seen God once and experienced and witnessed His presence a number of times. Each and every time was during an altered state of consciousness. Now, there is the proposition of panpsychism as a possibility. But in this experience God would be observed as a universal consciousness as opposed to being understood to be specifically a Being that goes by the name God. A general manifestation of universal awareness in other words. But specifically speaking, evidence would appear as an identity that distributes itself over reality at large. Or it may appear to be within. Either way, it would be obvious to the observer that God is real.

Last night I saw Jim Morrison singing with The Doors, it is the first time I've seen him since his death.
I have seen Jim once and experienced and witnessed His presence a number of times. Each and every time was during an altered state of consciousness. Now, there is the proposition of panpsychist as a possibility. But in this experience Jim would be observed as a universal consciousness as opposed to being understood to be specifically a Being that goes by the name Jim. A general manifestation of universal awareness in other words. But specifically speaking, evidence would appear as an identity that distributes itself over reality at large. Or it may appear to be within. Either way, it would be obvious to the observer that Jim is real.

 

[Nakosis]

There exists empirical evidence for God but it is spiritual in nature. God is inaccessible by nature. An analogy would be that of entering another dimension in order to reach Him. As I have stated before, I have seen God once and experienced and witnessed His presence a number of times. Each and every time was during an altered state of consciousness. Now, there is the proposition of panpsychism as a possibility. But in this experience God would be observed as a universal consciousness as opposed to being understood to be specifically a Being that goes by the name God. A general manifestation of universal awareness in other words. But specifically speaking, evidence would appear as an identity that distributes itself over reality at large. Or it may appear to be within. Either way, it would be obvious to the observer that God is real.

I suppose if you can prove something to a skeptic then your good. Otherwise, really then, not so much. One can create whatever narrative they feel appropriate that fits with their experience. This doesn't really guarantee the truth of it. Convincing a fellow believer usually ain't too hard. Being able to convince a disbeliever, someone who'll try every possible way to disprove your claim. If you can succeed in convincing them, then you got something you can take to the bank.

Still I'm sure such a narrative is convincing enough for yourself and fellow like minded individuals.

 

[Windwalker]

You do not appear to understand the nature of empirical evidence.

em·pir·i·cal
əmˈpirik(ə)l/
adjective

1. based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.
   "they provided considerable empirical evidence to support their argument"
   synonyms: experiential, practical, heuristic, firsthand, hands-on; More

He mentioned it was based on experience. That makes it empirical according to the above definition. Does your understanding of empirical exclude what is bolded above?

 

[Subduction Zone]

em·pir·i·cal
əmˈpirik(ə)l/
adjective

1. based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.
   "they provided considerable empirical evidence to support their argument"
   synonyms: experiential, practical, heuristic, firsthand, hands-on; More

He mentioned it was based on experience. That makproofes it empirical according to the above definition. Does your understanding of empirical exclude what is bolded above?

A dictionary definition? Are you serious?

Even Wikipedia beats that all to hell:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence

Also you quoted out of context. Empirical evidence is observable evidence. It will also be identical regardless of observer. His observations are unique, therefore not empirical evidence.

 

[Windwalker]

A dictionary definition? Are you serious?

Even Wikipedia beats that all to hell:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence

Also you quoted out of context. Empirical evidence is observable evidence. It will also be identical regardless of observer. His observations are unique, therefore not empirical evidence.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/empirical

Definition of empirical
1: originating in or based on observation or experience

• empirical data

2: relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory

• an empirical basis for the theory

3: capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment

• empirical laws

4: of or relating to empiricism

Whether you like it or not, experience is considered empirical data, and may serve as empirical basis for a scientific theory. That data may serve as evidence. May it not? It is evidence of something... hence why it serves as a evidence for further investigation.

 

[GoodbyeDave]

But if you are experiencing an altered state of consciousness, how can you verify that what you're experiencing is actually real, as a-posed [sic] to a delusion?

By the usual tests. For example:

I had a high fever as a teenager, and was hallucinating. At one point Mohammed Ali came into my room…

like not having a fever and not experiencing the presence of one who was demonstrably elsewhere. Evaluating the reliability of experience is something we do all the time.

A dictionary definition? Are you serious? Even Wikipedia beats that all to hell. It will also be identical regardless of observer.

Dictionaries record what words mean when used by the majority of educated people. Wikipedia records what they mean when used by the authors of the article. If the article is written by a devotee of scientism (the faith of the proprietor, of course) then naturally it will support you. And only evidence that's identical for all observers is acceptable? Supposing different observers have different capabilities? Even in the case of your cherished sensual evidence, there's a great difference between the observations of one person who is tone-deaf and another who has perfect pitch!

Nevertheless, I cannot see that the OP has made his point. He may have experienced something, even some-one, but did that entity identify itself, and how?

 

[Subduction Zone]

By the usual tests. For example:

like not having a fever and not experiencing the presence of one who was demonstrably elsewhere. Evaluating the reliability of experience is something we do all the time.


Dictionaries record what words mean when used by the majority of educated people. Wikipedia records what they mean when used by the authors of the article. If the article is written by a devotee of scientism (the faith of the proprietor, of course) then naturally it will support you. And only evidence that's identical for all observers is acceptable? Supposing different observers have different capabilities? Even in the case of your cherished sensual evidence, there's a great difference between the observations of one person who is tone-deaf and another who has perfect pitch!

Nevertheless, I cannot see that the OP has made his point. He may have experienced something, even some-one, but did that entity identify itself, and how?

No, dictionaries barely skim the surface when it comes to technical concepts. Wikipedia is far from perfect but goes much deeper into the concept than a dictionary can. It is a far superior source.

 

[TurkeyOnRye]

But if you are experiencing an altered state of consciousness, how can you verify that what you're experiencing is actually real, as a-posed to a delusion?

I can only speak from my own experience, but the question actually isn't even relevant. To explain why, there are experiences which---by virtue of the fact that such experience is even possible---previous conceptions of reality must be reformulated, as they are revealed as a tiny insufficient speck of the bigger picture. The previous conception is not discarded, but merely reincorporated into a grander perception. I attribute the experience to massive floods of data entering the sensorium, which serve to "superposition" one's identity, and is generally accompanied by very positive feelings. The trouble is that such experiences are so brief and infrequent for most people, that it's almost impossible to draft the experience into something conceptually manageable, let alone relatable to others. There is also the risk of interpreting the experience through the lens of some dogmatic belief structure. This is the point where delusion takes hold; that is instead of taking the experience and using it to conceptualize a sort of meta-reality, one utilizes it to uphold an inflexible content-driven belief.

 

[sealchan]

There exists empirical evidence for God but it is spiritual in nature. God is inaccessible by nature. An analogy would be that of entering another dimension in order to reach Him. As I have stated before, I have seen God once and experienced and witnessed His presence a number of times. Each and every time was during an altered state of consciousness. Now, there is the proposition of panpsychism as a possibility. But in this experience God would be observed as a universal consciousness as opposed to being understood to be specifically a Being that goes by the name God. A general manifestation of universal awareness in other words. But specifically speaking, evidence would appear as an identity that distributes itself over reality at large. Or it may appear to be within. Either way, it would be obvious to the observer that God is real.

How is that different than seeing God or sensing His presence while watching a movie in a theater?

 

[sealchan]

I can only speak from my own experience, but the question actually isn't even relevant. To explain why, there are experiences which---by virtue of the fact that such experience is even possible---previous conceptions of reality must be reformulated, as they are revealed as a tiny insufficient speck of the bigger picture. The previous conception is not discarded, but merely reincorporated into a grander perception. I attribute the experience to massive floods of data entering the sensorium, which serve to "superposition" one's identity, and is generally accompanied by very positive feelings. The trouble is that such experiences are so brief and infrequent for most people, that it's almost impossible to draft the experience into something conceptually manageable, let alone relatable to others. There is also the risk of interpreting the experience through the lens of some dogmatic belief structure. This is the point where delusion takes hold; that is instead of taking the experience and using it to conceptualize a sort of meta-reality, one utilizes it to uphold an inflexible content-driven belief.

How is the meta-reality any different than the dogmatic belief? It seems that in this discussion what is being forgotten is that the human brain does not perfectly reflect reality but creates half of the world it re-presents within its neurons.

Objectively, there is no such thing as Red.

 

[sealchan]

There exists empirical evidence for God but it is spiritual in nature. God is inaccessible by nature. An analogy would be that of entering another dimension in order to reach Him. As I have stated before, I have seen God once and experienced and witnessed His presence a number of times. Each and every time was during an altered state of consciousness. Now, there is the proposition of panpsychism as a possibility. But in this experience God would be observed as a universal consciousness as opposed to being understood to be specifically a Being that goes by the name God. A general manifestation of universal awareness in other words. But specifically speaking, evidence would appear as an identity that distributes itself over reality at large. Or it may appear to be within. Either way, it would be obvious to the observer that God is real.

I would say that you could provide evidence for the objective reality of God as a psychological phenomenon. Metaphysics is unnecessary.

 

[Audie]

I can only speak from my own experience, but the question actually isn't even relevant. To explain why, there are experiences which---by virtue of the fact that such experience is even possible---previous conceptions of reality must be reformulated, as they are revealed as a tiny insufficient speck of the bigger picture. The previous conception is not discarded, but merely reincorporated into a grander perception. I attribute the experience to massive floods of data entering the sensorium, which serve to "superposition" one's identity, and is generally accompanied by very positive feelings. The trouble is that such experiences are so brief and infrequent for most people, that it's almost impossible to draft the experience into something conceptually manageable, let alone relatable to others. There is also the risk of interpreting the experience through the lens of some dogmatic belief structure. This is the point where delusion takes hold; that is instead of taking the experience and using it to conceptualize a sort of meta-reality, one utilizes it to uphold an inflexible content-driven belief.

Rephrase into a sentence or two if you could? Plz?