• 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

autonomous1one1

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
In my training on debates we learned there were two ways to win. Independent but qualified observers can judge and vote on who presented the best case and the team with the most votes wins, of course. But, it is too late for that in this thread; for, the other way to win is when one team withdraws because they are completely overwhelmed and know it.:D That must be the case here with the disappearance of all our opposing friends. However, on their behalf and in oneness with them, I suppose there could be other reasons.:)
 

Rioku

Wanabe *********
That must be the case here with the disappearance of all our opposing friends.

Someone is a little optimistic. The theist 'debaters' have yet to present any information to back up their claims. Hence the lack of responses, why respond when all the opposing side is doing is making claims with no support. Personally, I stopped after waisting my time reading the article linked to. I admit to not reading it completely and I never will, I do not have the time to read everything a theist throws at me.
 

autonomous1one1

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Someone is a little optimistic. The theist 'debaters' have yet to present any information to back up their claims. Hence the lack of responses, why respond when all the opposing side is doing is making claims with no support. Personally, I stopped after waisting my time reading the article linked to. I admit to not reading it completely and I never will, I do not have the time to read everything a theist throws at me.
__:)____
 

Rolling_Stone

Well-Known Member
In my training on debates we learned there were two ways to win. Independent but qualified observers can judge and vote on who presented the best case and the team with the most votes wins, of course. But, it is too late for that in this thread; for, the other way to win is when one team withdraws because they are completely overwhelmed and know it.:D That must be the case here with the disappearance of all our opposing friends. However, on their behalf and in oneness with them, I suppose there could be other reasons.:)
You mean like the Is God Conscious thread?
 

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
Someone is a little optimistic. The theist 'debaters' have yet to present any information to back up their claims. Hence the lack of responses, why respond when all the opposing side is doing is making claims with no support. Personally, I stopped after waisting my time reading the article linked to. I admit to not reading it completely and I never will, I do not have the time to read everything a theist throws at me.
One of the difficulties would be that anyone who presents "the evidence" would be presenting the evidence for them and not for anyone else, so it would always remain unconvincing. I think this has already been covered.
 

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
Greetings my friend Rioku. So far, all I have tried to do is point towards the kind of experience we are talking about so that we all can narrow the broad spectrum down a bit. Also, several have posted that if there were some consistencies among religious experiences they might look at them differently. It seems from the bolded part of your post that you agree with me that there is an experience that some interpret as an awakening and that there is some consistency among such experiences.

Let me see if we really agree on anything yet:

1)there is an experience that some interpret as an 'awakening'
2)there are many examples documented and described throughout history
3)there is some consistency of characteristics among the 'awakened' persons
4)these characteristics result from the being that has believed and interpreted the experience and been transformed by it
5)if the experience is actually real as believed, the 'awakening' is of immense importance (e.g.'s, realization of eternal life, loss of fear, knowing a higher reality, etc.)
6)the experience is proof of God.:)

Of course, you cannot agree in any way with #6, but #'s 1 thru 5 should be palatable to some degree. Yes?

Regards,
a..1


I don't know what 5) means. Every experience is "real." That doesn't mean that there exists a corresponding external reality. In addition, 5) is an "if" statement. You seem to be missing the assertion that the experience is "real", whatever that means. I doubt that many would agree that it is possible to conclude that there exists some external reality corresponding to these experiences.

I see no connection between any of it and 6) whatsoever. Why would you leap from shared transcendent experience to God? Why not a transcendent level of reality or being?

In any case, I think the most likely explanation lies in our brains. I understand that surgeons can induce transcendent religious experiences by stimulating the appropriate location in your brain. We're all human; we all have brains, so the commonality of the experience is understandable.

In general, if there exists and external reality, everyone within perceiving range gets it. Otherwise you need some explanation for why only some people have these experiences, and why they vary so widely from one person to the next.
 

Popeyesays

Well-Known Member
The rational mind arrives at a conclusion based on evidence and logic.

Evidence without logic will never create a conclusion. Logic eventually enters or stays aloof.

Put it another way:

Evidence can help one draw conclusions. Logic can reach conclusions without evidence.

Let's look at the ancient syllogism:

All men are mortal.
Socrates is a man.
Therefore Socrates is mortal.

Well, the initial statement relies upon a phrase: "To the best of my knowledge, all men are mortal."

The second statement relies on the phrase: "To all outward appearances Socrates is a man."

And the conclusion should read: "So we can kill Socrates and all the problems he is associated with will go away."

There was no way to determine that there had ever been a man who was immortal.
There was no way to PROVE Socrates was a man at that point in time. Dissection, autopsy and DNA analysis were not available to explicitly prove it a fact.

They killed Socrates and still Socrates lives among us, in the form of his story, philosophy and as proof that man's reach extends far beyond his mortality.

Regards,
Scott
 

Rolling_Stone

Well-Known Member
Well said, Popeyesays.

Not all conceptions of God share the same status of defensibility, but atheists face an uphill battle for the following reasons:
  • It is not for the atheist to set the agenda by defining God for the believer.
  • Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. While it is altogether appropriate to demand evidence for miracles and the like, it is entirely inappropriate to demand physical evidence for God himself, who is, by definition, not physical in most religious traditions.
  • The need for a sufficient cause: the anthropic principle. Logically, something cannot emerge from that in which it is entirely absent. If human consciousness can make a conscious decision to wiggle a little finger when otherwise it would not wiggle, consciousness is manifestly of a type altogether different than matter--it transcends matter and can only be explained in non-material terms. Describing the material processes in the brain explains nothing; neither do the changes in consciousness as the result of drugs or disease illustrate the materiality of consciousness, any more than the workings of a radio explain the radio transmission. If consciousness exists at all, if it is more than a mechanistic illusion, it must, in some form that may not be readily apparent to our senses, be intrinsic to the nature of reality itself. Any claim to the contrary is extraordinary and requires extraordinary evidence.
  • Personal experience. Unverifiability is not sufficient reason to dismiss claims of personal religious experience out of hand, much less religion’s long history of such claims. Neither does a description of the material processes in the brain during such “peak experiences” provide an explanation.
  • Interpretation. Rationalism is wrong to suppose religion is first a primitive belief in something followed by the pursuit of appropriate values. It is, rather, the other way around: religion is the pursuit of values followed by interpretative concepts. If experienced values are reason to act in a certain way, it is only natural that the reason of man would then formulate a working hypotheses as to why it is so.
  • Religion is natural. While religion--the pursuit of values followed by conceptual interpretations serving to explain them--is normal and natural to man, it is also optional. Man does not have to be religious against his will, but the natural man, being a rational creature, craves rational explanations. (This is not to say that a nonreligious person can’t be virtuous.)
 

rojse

RF Addict
Well said, Popeyesays.

Not all conceptions of God share the same status of defensibility, but atheists face an uphill battle for the following reasons:

It is not for the atheist to set the agenda by defining God for the believer.

True, but when will there be any common consensus as to what God is, so that we can debate with the particular anthropomorphic characterisations of a deity in mind?

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. While it is altogether appropriate to demand evidence for miracles and the like, it is entirely inappropriate to demand physical evidence for God himself, who is, by definition, not physical in most religious traditions.

I will certainly agree with that, but should we keep an open mind about the existence of dragons, unicorns, elves, fairies, and so forth? What about the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

The need for a sufficient cause: the anthropic principle. Logically, something cannot emerge from that in which it is entirely absent. If human consciousness can make a conscious decision to wiggle a little finger when otherwise it would not wiggle, consciousness is manifestly of a type altogether different than matter--it transcends matter and can only be explained in non-material terms. Describing the material processes in the brain explains nothing; neither do the changes in consciousness as the result of drugs or disease illustrate the materiality of consciousness, any more than the workings of a radio explain the radio transmission. If consciousness exists at all, if it is more than a mechanistic illusion, it must, in some form that may not be readily apparent to our senses, be intrinsic to the nature of reality itself. Any claim to the contrary is extraordinary and requires extraordinary evidence.

If consciousness transcends matter, how come consciousness can only affect the biological organs that encase this consciousness? If what you are saying is true, my consciousness should be able to affect everything - from massive objects such as planets and stars, down to individual molecules, because you claim it transcends matter.

Personal experience. Unverifiability is not sufficient reason to dismiss claims of personal religious experience out of hand, much less religion’s long history of such claims. Neither does a description of the material processes in the brain during such “peak experiences” provide an explanation.

Unverifiability is a very good reason to dismiss claims of many sorts. Do you accept every conspiracy claim that you hear, that makes more elaborate explanations based off new evidences that dismisses parts of the old conspiracy claims?

As for a description of material processes affecting the brain during an experience, if we can say that a particular neurological event occurs during this unexplainable personal experience, we artificially instigate the same event, and the exact same experience occurs, surely this goes towards some sort of explanation as to how the event occured? Would it completely explain it when we found a natural instigator of this neurological phenomena?

Interpretation. Rationalism is wrong to suppose religion is first a primitive belief in something followed by the pursuit of appropriate values. It is, rather, the other way around: religion is the pursuit of values followed by interpretative concepts. If experienced values are reason to act in a certain way, it is only natural that the reason of man would then formulate a working hypotheses as to why it is so.

A debatable claim.

Religion is natural. While religion--the pursuit of values followed by conceptual interpretations serving to explain them--is normal and natural to man, it is also optional. Man does not have to be religious against his will, but the natural man, being a rational creature, craves rational explanations. (This is not to say that a nonreligious person can’t be virtuous.)

Something being natural is such an overworked term that it has lost all meaning. For example, mercury can be considered natural. Not wearing any clothes can be considered natural. Conversely, discoveries like pennecillin and computers can be considered "unnatural". Why should something being "natural", and other things not being natural change our consideration of an object or an idea?
 

Rolling_Stone

Well-Known Member
True, but when will there be any common consensus as to what God is, so that we can debate with the particular anthropomorphic characterisations of a deity in mind?
Never. Religious experience is an intensely personal experience and so is the conceptual interpretation.
I will certainly agree with that, but should we keep an open mind about the existence of dragons, unicorns, elves, fairies, and so forth? What about the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
Hehehe. Did I say I was opposed to logic, reason or evidence? I only said evidence has limited applications.
If consciousness transcends matter, how come consciousness can only affect the biological organs that encase this consciousness? If what you are saying is true, my consciousness should be able to affect everything - from massive objects such as planets and stars, down to individual molecules, because you claim it transcends matter.
According to some scientists, it does. Besides, it wiggles you finger, doesn't it?
Unverifiability is a very good reason to dismiss claims of many sorts. Do you accept every conspiracy claim that you hear, that makes more elaborate explanations based off new evidences that dismisses parts of the old conspiracy claims?
I repeat: Did I say I was opposed to logic, reason or evidence? I only said evidence has limited applications.
As for a description of material processes affecting the brain during an experience, if we can say that a particular neurological event occurs during this unexplainable personal experience, we artificially instigate the same event, and the exact same experience occurs, surely this goes towards some sort of explanation as to how the event occured? Would it completely explain it when we found a natural instigator of this neurological phenomena?
Not at all. You have a correlation. When a theologian was presented with the results of such experiments his reaction was, "I should certainly hope so!"
A debatable claim.
Not really.
Something being natural is such an overworked term that it has lost all meaning. For example, mercury can be considered natural. Not wearing any clothes can be considered natural. Conversely, discoveries like pennecillin and computers can be considered "unnatural". Why should something being "natural", and other things not being natural change our consideration of an object or an idea?
"...the natural man, being a rational creature, craves rational explanations."
 

crystalonyx

Well-Known Member
"According to some scientists, it does. Besides, it wiggles you finger, doesn't it?"

Part of your body, connected to the brain, non-sequitor.
 

Popeyesays

Well-Known Member
True, but when will there be any common consensus as to what God is, so that we can debate with the particular anthropomorphic characterisations of a deity in mind?



I will certainly agree with that, but should we keep an open mind about the existence of dragons, unicorns, elves, fairies, and so forth? What about the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

What God IS, I have no way of knowing. I know anthropomorphism is a silly notion when speaking of the mysteries of God:

"In every age and cycle He hath, through the splendorous light shed by the Manifestations of His wondrous Essence, recreated all things, so that whatsoever reflecteth in the heavens and on the earth the signs of His glory may not be deprived of the outpourings of His mercy, nor despair of the showers of His favors. How all-encompassing are the wonders of His boundless grace! Behold how they have pervaded the whole of creation. Such is their virtue that not a single atom in the entire universe can be found which doth not declare the evidences of His might, which doth not glorify His holy Name, or is not expressive of the effulgent light of His unity. So perfect and comprehensive is His creation that no mind nor heart, however keen or pure, can ever grasp the nature of the most insignificant of His creatures; much less fathom the mystery of Him Who is the Day Star of Truth, Who is the invisible and unknowable Essence. The conceptions of the devoutest of mystics, the attainments of the most accomplished amongst men, the highest praise which human tongue or pen can render are all the product of man's finite mind and are conditioned by its limitations. Ten thousand Prophets, each a Moses, are thunderstruck upon the Sinai of their search at His forbidding voice, "Thou shalt never behold Me!"; whilst a myriad Messengers, each as great as Jesus, stand dismayed upon their heavenly thrones by the interdiction, "Mine Essence thou shalt never apprehend!". From time immemorial He hath been veiled in the ineffable sanctity of His exalted Self, and will everlastingly continue to be wrapt in the impenetrable mystery of His unknowable Essence. Every attempt to attain to an understanding of His inaccessible Reality hath ended in complete bewilderment, and every effort to approach His exalted Self and envisage His Essence hath resulted in hopelessness and failure."

(Baha'u'llah, Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah, p. 62)

The Flying Spaghetti Monster is just an old strawman. You have to hold it up, because it can no longer hold itself up.

Regards,
Scott
 

Rolling_Stone

Well-Known Member
Consciousness? Actually it would seem not.
First of all, if consciousness is the primary reality, I find it strange that someone would expect the universe to behave any differently than they expect. Second, I also find it strange that much faith is placed in science until experiments present a challenge to their materialistic view. Third, if consciousness does not cause a finger to wiggle that would not otherwise wiggle, what does?
 

Yerda

Veteran Member
First of all, if consciousness is the primary reality, I find it strange that someone would expect the universe to behave any differently than they expect. Second, I also find it strange that much faith is placed in science until experiments present a challenge to their materialistic view. Third, if consciousness does not cause a finger to wiggle that would not otherwise wiggle, what does?
OK. I'm not sure what to make of your first objection. I don't know what a primary reality is. My apologies there. I have to admit that I trust in science. Some do find it odd, but it keeps on working so I keep on trusting.

Experiments have described activity occuring in the unconscious regions of the brain when a motor function is about to occur - a few hundredths of a second before the conscious brain activates. When you became aware that you were going to move your fingers (wiggle them if you like) to your 'F' key (i.e. when you 'decided' to do it) your unconscious brain was already wondering what to have for tomorrow's breakfast. I know that doesn't quite say what does the wiggling, but it shows us what doesn't.
 

Rolling_Stone

Well-Known Member
OK. I'm not sure what to make of your first objection. I don't know what a primary reality is. My apologies there. I have to admit that I trust in science. Some do find it odd, but it keeps on working so I keep on trusting.
As I use it, "primary" = "more fundamental": matter is to be explained in terms of consciousness rather than consciousness in terms of matter. I like science too, but it has limitations and its own prejudices. For example, Occam's razor would have us take the Aspect experiments at face value, but instead of doing that, the results are often dismissed as not meaningful at our level of existence. A comfortable point of view, perhaps, but hardly scientific.

Experiments have described activity occuring in the unconscious regions of the brain when a motor function is about to occur - a few hundredths of a second before the conscious brain activates. When you became aware that you were going to move your fingers (wiggle them if you like) to your 'F' key (i.e. when you 'decided' to do it) your unconscious brain was already wondering what to have for tomorrow's breakfast. I know that doesn't quite say what does the wiggling, but it shows us what doesn't.
There are also experiments showing that the consciousness is aware of a sensation before the signal has time to reach the brain. The point is, there are so many variables and unknowns about consciousness (there's even disagreement about what it is or even if it exists) that the only way it can be discussed is from the way it is experienced.
 

doppelganger

Through the Looking Glass
Proof
Some people gonna call you up
Tell you something that you already know

Proof
Sane people go crazy on you
Say ''No man, that was not
The deal we made
I got to go, I got to go''

Faith
Faith is an island in the setting sun

But proof, yeah . . .
Proof is the bottom line for everyone


- Paul SImon, "Proof"
 

Rolling_Stone

Well-Known Member
OK. I'm not sure what to make of your first objection. I don't know what a primary reality is. My apologies there. I have to admit that I trust in science. Some do find it odd, but it keeps on working so I keep on trusting.

Experiments have described activity occuring in the unconscious regions of the brain when a motor function is about to occur - a few hundredths of a second before the conscious brain activates. When you became aware that you were going to move your fingers (wiggle them if you like) to your 'F' key (i.e. when you 'decided' to do it) your unconscious brain was already wondering what to have for tomorrow's breakfast. I know that doesn't quite say what does the wiggling, but it shows us what doesn't.
Thank you Jaiket! Really! I was already aware that there are indications that the brain sends out the signal before the consciousness is aware of doing so, and I was aware that there are also indications that the brain is aware of a sensation before the signal has time to reach it. I just never put the two together before.

I'm gonna have to get my mind wrapped around that!
 
Top