Even though Michael may be evidence that there is a deceiver, our two posts don't have much to do with "evidence that there is a God," do they?
-
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:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Evidence?
- Thread starter Storm
- Start date
Even though Michael may be evidence that there is a deceiver, our two posts don't have much to do with "evidence that there is a God," do they?
nonbeliever_92
Well-Known Member
personal experience cannot qualify as evidence of a god, especially when the experiences of others vary so greatly and when most people don't experience these things at all.
A compelling piece of evidence for god is hard for me to say because
1) There are many gods
and
2) There is no clear definition for god(s)
A compelling piece of evidence for god is hard for me to say because
1) There are many gods
and
2) There is no clear definition for god(s)
Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
1) I'm not. Reread the OP.
2) If you don't like a topic, don't post. There's no need to come into someone else's thread and then complain about it. Talk about rude.
Fortunato
Honest
Sorry to come to this discussion so late. It's nice to stumble upon a thread where so much good, reasoned thought has been displayed (especially the first 20 or so pages of it)!
Personal experience - something along the order of a dead relative, let's say my grandma, coming back to life and visiting. Of course my first thought would probably be that I was hallucinating, but if other family members were around and could interact with her then that would help bolster my *conversion to belief*. Then again, I still might think we just suffered some sort of mass delusion. I guess that means grandma would have to stay for a while to make sure the experience was real.
Non-personal experience - This would require some sort of scientific type of testing and review, with very repeatable outcomes.
Storm, I agree with you that the fact that so many people from around the world claim to have had a personal experience with god is something which atheists shouldn't ignore. Earlier, it was asked if there is some sense or perception which allows people to experience god, which reminded me of an experiment I had heard. If a person was born completely color blind, it might be hard for them to accept that what others call colors are real. One way to demonstrate this for them would be to get a bunch of blocks of different colors and on the bottom of each one write the color which it matches. They could then ask people to pick up the red, or blue, or yellow block and could confirm for themselves by looking at the bottom of the block whether they were correct or not. Through repeated experiments, they would finally accept that other peoples ability to predict which block was which couldn't be explained by mere chance. If peoples inability to experience god themselves is due to a lack of a certain spiritual perception or training, then a similar experiment could theoretically demonstrate to the non-believing that there is actually something to this god-perception.
My second point is that based on what people have posted so far, most of these personal experiences don't necessarily reveal knowledge. People have a sense of being one with the universe, or they feel the presence of some higher power, or something along those lines. It is this type of a personal response and interpretation of the experiences which really makes me question that this is relevant to the outside world. Whatever this experience is, it's not like vision, smell, taste, touch, or sound which don't normally vary with peoples personal interpretations and are universally perceived by all. And therefore I highly doubt that an experiment, similar to the color blindness example, would prove this to be a new and different type of sensory perception. If studies showed that everyone who experienced this higher power was able to come back from that experience with new knowledge about the outside world (a prediction of some sort or revelations in the fields of math, science, literature, or the arts), then we could perhaps prove that it was some universal consciousness or power that they were communing with. If studies showed that this experience didn't impart knowledge, then I would have to conclude that the experience people were having was just that: an experience, i.e. the sensation of thought or reception of sensory signals to the brain.
It seems to me that what is gained from this type of experience is a personal awareness , revelation, or perspective on life and the universe. Which isn't to say that such experiences aren't valuable. Some of the best artists used mind altering drugs to gain a new perspective of the world. But from what I can tell this is more an experience of the mind/consciousness than it is a reflection of the world around us.
I can think of two types of evidence that would likely convince me about the existence of god.
Personal experience - something along the order of a dead relative, let's say my grandma, coming back to life and visiting. Of course my first thought would probably be that I was hallucinating, but if other family members were around and could interact with her then that would help bolster my *conversion to belief*. Then again, I still might think we just suffered some sort of mass delusion. I guess that means grandma would have to stay for a while to make sure the experience was real.
Non-personal experience - This would require some sort of scientific type of testing and review, with very repeatable outcomes.
Storm, I agree with you that the fact that so many people from around the world claim to have had a personal experience with god is something which atheists shouldn't ignore. Earlier, it was asked if there is some sense or perception which allows people to experience god, which reminded me of an experiment I had heard. If a person was born completely color blind, it might be hard for them to accept that what others call colors are real. One way to demonstrate this for them would be to get a bunch of blocks of different colors and on the bottom of each one write the color which it matches. They could then ask people to pick up the red, or blue, or yellow block and could confirm for themselves by looking at the bottom of the block whether they were correct or not. Through repeated experiments, they would finally accept that other peoples ability to predict which block was which couldn't be explained by mere chance. If peoples inability to experience god themselves is due to a lack of a certain spiritual perception or training, then a similar experiment could theoretically demonstrate to the non-believing that there is actually something to this god-perception.
My second point is that based on what people have posted so far, most of these personal experiences don't necessarily reveal knowledge. People have a sense of being one with the universe, or they feel the presence of some higher power, or something along those lines. It is this type of a personal response and interpretation of the experiences which really makes me question that this is relevant to the outside world. Whatever this experience is, it's not like vision, smell, taste, touch, or sound which don't normally vary with peoples personal interpretations and are universally perceived by all. And therefore I highly doubt that an experiment, similar to the color blindness example, would prove this to be a new and different type of sensory perception. If studies showed that everyone who experienced this higher power was able to come back from that experience with new knowledge about the outside world (a prediction of some sort or revelations in the fields of math, science, literature, or the arts), then we could perhaps prove that it was some universal consciousness or power that they were communing with. If studies showed that this experience didn't impart knowledge, then I would have to conclude that the experience people were having was just that: an experience, i.e. the sensation of thought or reception of sensory signals to the brain.
It seems to me that what is gained from this type of experience is a personal awareness , revelation, or perspective on life and the universe. Which isn't to say that such experiences aren't valuable. Some of the best artists used mind altering drugs to gain a new perspective of the world. But from what I can tell this is more an experience of the mind/consciousness than it is a reflection of the world around us.
Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
Meh, the threads been dead a while. No need to apologize for helping to revive it!
ITA. My theophany gave me a slew of questions and no answers. I'm dubious about the comparison to drugs, though.
I don't see it as an either/ or dilemma.
Fortunato
Honest
I could be totally wrong with that comparison. I've never had one of these spiritual epiphanies or done drugs, so that's the best I could wrap my mind around it. From what I've read, they both can open new doors towards inner exploration. Of course, you run the risk with drugs, that they could also close such doors.
Tiapan
Grumpy Old Man
As I understand it there are two types of evidence, objective and subjective.
Rationalists prefer objective evidence while spiritualists tend to prefer subjective evidence.
But I guess by definition they are both evidence.
So in the case of Storms syncope experience, I can agree rationally and objectively that the event probably occurred, but the spiritual conclusion she created is surely subjective.
Cheers
Rationalists prefer objective evidence while spiritualists tend to prefer subjective evidence.
But I guess by definition they are both evidence.
So in the case of Storms syncope experience, I can agree rationally and objectively that the event probably occurred, but the spiritual conclusion she created is surely subjective.
Cheers
Last edited:
logician
Well-Known Member
Evidence for god, let's see, since there are hundreds if not thousands of god concepts out there, which concept are we seeking evidence for? All of them? One of them?
One needs a very clear definition of what god is, before you could find evidence for it, otherwise, you may not recogize it when you see it.
One needs a very clear definition of what god is, before you could find evidence for it, otherwise, you may not recogize it when you see it.
Tiapan
Grumpy Old Man
Storm's
GODIVERSE = MATTER + ENERGY + CONSCIOUSNESS
Physical
UNIVERSE = MATTER + ENERGY + COMPLEXITY
IF COMPLEXITY = CONSCIOUSNESS
THEN GODIVERSE = UNIVERSE
THEREFORE NO PROOF Needed
BUT IF CONSCIOUSNESS IS NOT EQUAL TO COMPLEXITY
THEN GODIVERSE IS NOT EQUAL TO UNIVERSE
THEREFORE EVIDENCE REQUIRED
Cheers
Last edited:
slave2six
Substitious
In that case, what does it matter whether someone believes in a god or not? It seems to me that it would only matter if this deity either required belief or intended to interact with humans in some way. Otherwise, the question is like asking "what is the sound of one hand clapping?". Who cares?
Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
It doesn't. Where did you get the impression that it did?
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
It matters only to the one with the belief. If one has a desire to seek, that desire is only filled by finding that which is sought after.
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
The evidence is personal, and does not require proving to others.
The concept is what one finds, and is not related to the god concepts of others.