Experiencing God

[Cephus]

I agree - I don't usually bring up personal experiences with atheists, because I know what they sounded like when I was an atheist- and they didn't help at all.

I suppose the whole point is that they ARE very personal, and ultimately personal experiences are the best proof of anything?

But, in fact, they're not. If you were not impressed with such claims when you were an atheist, you shouldn't be impressed with them now because, even if you're the one experiencing them, they prove nothing, Everything you thought was wrong with them when you were an atheist is probably still wrong with them now. When I was a Christian, I was utterly convinced that I had experiences with God but as I started to examine them rationally, I realized that I had no such thing, I was just insisting that they were with God when there was no reasonable or objective way to verify my own demands.

You're probably doing the same thing and because you're so close to it, you're not being as objective as you should be. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[viole]

I believe your thinking that there is no God is as credible as my thinking that there is except for the fact that you are thinking from a lack of experience while I am thinking from experience. What would you say if I said I don't believe there is an Eiffel Tower in Paris France? I can say I have never experienced so logically it must not exist. That is what you logic amounts to when you say there is no God.

What makes you think that i have no experiences concerning the absense of God?

I believe that is wishful thinking on your part.

Why? I am not sure whether I would not like the idea of a God. I was a Christian most of my life, after all.

I believe my experience of God is that Jesus is the true God. Since we are experiencing opposite things then one of us must be wrong in his assessment of who he is hearing. I believe Christians have a decided advantage in the fact that Jesus promised the Paraclete to Christians but Muslims do not have the Paraclete or any such promise. However one is not limited to what one hears but we also have the written word and there is no doubt in my mind that the evidence is there that Jesus is God. Usually the way this is viewed in Christian circles is that a person claiming to hear something from God that contradicts the word of God, is not really hearing from God.

It is a false dichotomy. It is not only you and me. It is you, me, the Muslims,the Hindus, the Buddhists, etc.

And this is only what you believe. You have no evidence that it is the case,

I believe we can give credibility to the fact that he thinks he is hearing from God but as things have been stated above there are reasons to believe he did not. The question becomes then how could you test whether someone hears from God and the answer is that you can't. The only person who will know that I hear from God will be another person who hears from God and not just someone who thinks he does.

My Muslim friend says exactly the same. And now? Why should I believe you and not him?

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

I agree - I don't usually bring up personal experiences with atheists, because I know what they sounded like when I was an atheist- and they didn't help at all.

Do you bring them up with Muslims?

I suppose the whole point is that they ARE very personal, and ultimately personal experiences are the best proof of anything?

Nope. With the possible exception of delusion.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Guy Threepwood]

But, in fact, they're not. If you were not impressed with such claims when you were an atheist, you shouldn't be impressed with them now because, even if you're the one experiencing them, they prove nothing, Everything you thought was wrong with them when you were an atheist is probably still wrong with them now. When I was a Christian, I was utterly convinced that I had experiences with God but as I started to examine them rationally, I realized that I had no such thing, I was just insisting that they were with God when there was no reasonable or objective way to verify my own demands.

You're probably doing the same thing and because you're so close to it, you're not being as objective as you should be. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

well that's why I don't bring them up, we can't know each other's experience, no matter how compelling. Just as I might conduct an experiment to prove to myself that CO2 enhances plant growth, as conclusive as it may be, 'taking my word for it' would never be as conclusive for you.

Just as witnessing a crime is most conclusive as evidence to the witness, a jury is forced to accept a lesser degree of evidence.

Objectively, perhaps the experiment and the crime were self delusions also, dreams of things that never really happened

 

[Muffled]

What makes you think that i have no experiences concerning the absense of God?

I believe experiencing an absence of God implies that there was a previous experience of God that is now absent. I believe what you mean is that you have experiences that appear to lead you to believe there is no God.

Why? I am not sure whether I would not like the idea of a God. I was a Christian most of my life, after all.

I believe that goes back before square one. I was referring to whether this argument is in process or reverting back to a previous step. I believe it is progresseing.

It is a false dichotomy. It is not only you and me. It is you, me, the Muslims,the Hindus, the Buddhists, etc.

And this is only what you believe. You have no evidence that it is the case,



My Muslim friend says exactly the same. And now? Why should I believe you and not him?

Ciao

- viole

I believe I gave you the reasons before but looking at this logically one of three cases must be true:1. both of us are deluded and there is no experience of God 2. I am deluded and the Muslim had an experience of God 3. The Muslim is deluded and I have had the experience with God.

I believe this requires looking outside this small circle and hear what others have to say.

 

[viole]

I believe I gave you the reasons before but looking at this logically one of three cases must be true:1. both of us are deluded and there is no experience of God 2. I am deluded and the Muslim had an experience of God 3. The Muslim is deluded and I have had the experience with God.

I believe this requires looking outside this small circle and hear what others have to say.

Yes, but that depends on who you ask. Or where you ask. If you ask people in Alabama you will have different answers than the ones you get if you ask in Jemen.

What reasons do you think there are that explain why experiences of the different versions of God are so unequally distributed geographically?

Ciao

- viole

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Just as witnessing a crime is most conclusive as evidence to the witness, a jury is forced to accept a lesser degree of evidence.

Eyewitness evidence is notoriously unreliable, even to the eyewitnesses themselves. Thoughtful witnesses realise this.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yes, but that depends on who you ask. Or where you ask. If you ask people in Alabama you will have different answers than the ones you get if you ask in Jemen.

What reasons do you think there are that explain why experiences of the different versions of God are so unequally distributed geographically?

Ciao

- viole

Because religions are memes: ideas that spread because their characteristics lend themselves to being spread, not because they're necessarily true.

... except for the one true faith, of course. Even though it behaves like all the other religions, it's reliable.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Eyewitness evidence is notoriously unreliable, even to the eyewitnesses themselves. Thoughtful witnesses realise this.

It may be 100% accurate, or made up, either way it means less 2nd hand, the evidence is more valuable to the witness.. it's personal was the point.

 

[Cephus]

well that's why I don't bring them up, we can't know each other's experience, no matter how compelling. Just as I might conduct an experiment to prove to myself that CO2 enhances plant growth, as conclusive as it may be, 'taking my word for it' would never be as conclusive for you.

Just as witnessing a crime is most conclusive as evidence to the witness, a jury is forced to accept a lesser degree of evidence.

Objectively, perhaps the experiment and the crime were self delusions also, dreams of things that never really happened

And I certainly commend you for that, you're doing it exactly right, as far as it goes. I'm just asking why you consider these experiences to be valid evidence yourself if you don't think they're good enough for anyone else? We both know that eyewitness testimony is not especially reliable, especially if you don't apply critical thinking or rationality to it, so why should those experiences mean anything to you at all? After all, you can do the CO2 experiment and have a dozen people with you, all watching the results to make sure they say the same thing. Those dozen people can go do their own experiments to see if the results hold across multiple attempts. How does anyone do that with an experience with God? How do you verify that the cause to which you attribute the experience actually caused the experience? If you can't, why give the experience any credibility?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It may be 100% accurate, or made up, either way it means less 2nd hand, the evidence is more valuable to the witness.. it's personal was the point.

There's a vast spectrum of grey between "100% accurate" and "made up". Even sincere witnesses are mistaken about important details... most of the time, in fact. And when you add in factors that negatively affect our state of mind (e.g. being tired or groggy) the reliability goes down even more.

I know that people have a tendency to believe that their memories are reliable, but this just isn't true a lot of the time. When we have confidence in our own eyewitness testimony, it's often unfounded.

 

[Cephus]

I know that people have a tendency to believe that their memories are reliable, but this just isn't true a lot of the time. When we have confidence in our own eyewitness testimony, it's often unfounded.

It's almost always unfounded. We know that the most reliable memory is immediately after the event, assuming the person is clear-headed and unimpaired. While it remains in short-term memory, the details are usually pretty vivid and reasonably accurate. Once it moves to long-term, or working memory though, it is open to all kinds of alterations and the longer since the event, the less reliable the memory becomes. This has been demonstrated time and time again and is a result of how memories are actually stored in the brain.

 

[Thruve]

But in either case, we can ask how you know the message is from Doug. Was it actually Doug, or was it a "Doug impersonator"? Did you make a bad assumption about someone who only looked like Doug? Did you assume that the note was from Doug only because it seemed like something he would say?

Even in the case of a simple interaction with Doug, there's still the possibility that you might be mistaken or deceived. This is why when it really matters, we don't assume that you really did talk to Doug: if you go to the bank saying that Doug told you to withdraw $1000 from his account, the teller won't give you the cash.

Really, dude? Really?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Really, dude? Really?

Really.

If any of what I said was unreasonable, please point it out.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It's almost always unfounded. We know that the most reliable memory is immediately after the event, assuming the person is clear-headed and unimpaired. While it remains in short-term memory, the details are usually pretty vivid and reasonably accurate. Once it moves to long-term, or working memory though, it is open to all kinds of alterations and the longer since the event, the less reliable the memory becomes. This has been demonstrated time and time again and is a result of how memories are actually stored in the brain.

Also, discussing an event tends to change our memory of it.

I'm a race marshal (among other things). If we witness a driver commit some rule infraction, each person who saw it fills out a written report. If we discuss the event with each other while filling out our reports, the race director effectively throws the report away, because it's deemed unreliable.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

There's a vast spectrum of grey between "100% accurate" and "made up". Even sincere witnesses are mistaken about important details... most of the time, in fact. And when you add in factors that negatively affect our state of mind (e.g. being tired or groggy) the reliability goes down even more.

I know that people have a tendency to believe that their memories are reliable, but this just isn't true a lot of the time. When we have confidence in our own eyewitness testimony, it's often unfounded.

I think we agree here, not much fun in that!

 

[mystic64]

There is "no proof" that God (a profoundly powerful force with a conscious mind) "does not" exist. Absolutely none! To say to someone who believes in God that they are delusional is to be delusional yourself. And you are parrotting a belief that has no bases in fact. Absolutely none ! Oh well , conflict sells newspapers and Religious Forums is an internet magazine.

Atheism is as an illogical argument as theism is ! Unless of course you have actually experienced God and God will play on your side. Which then gives you an advantage that non believers do not have. And stuff just falls a part around them and they have no idea why.

 

[Cephus]

There is "no proof" that God (a profoundly powerful force with a conscious mind) "does not" exist. Absolutely none! To say to someone who believes in God that they are delusional is to be delusional yourself. And you are parrotting a belief that has no bases in fact. Absolutely none ! Oh well , conflict sells newspapers and Religious Forums is an internet magazine.

There is also no proof that any god doesn't exist. There is no evidence that unicorns don't exist. There is no evidence that leprechauns don't exist. There is no evidence that Santa Claus doesn't exist. However, most adults would consider belief in any of these things to be absurd. Why is God different?

Atheism is as an illogical argument as theism is !

Unless of course you have actually experienced God and God will play on your side. Which then gives you an advantage that non believers do not have. And stuff just falls a part around them and they have no idea why.

No, you just have a poor understanding of what atheism is. It is the rejection of claims about the supernatural because of lack of evidence. It is not, for the majority of atheists, a belief that gods do not exist.

But do try again.

 

[Thief]

I don't believe so. Magic spells require a person to do something a specific way to achieve the results. Prayers are totally optional in their content although some like to use the Lord's Prayer as a guideline. If the Lord's Prayer becomes a mantra then it is bordering on a magic spell.

Method compared to madness?
Whenever calling upon your chosen 'Power.....it's an incantation.

I do on rare occasions pray.
But I believe my Higher Power has a Greater Agenda.

If heaven can poke a finger in my direction (I believe Heaven has done so).....
and spare me a really bad episode.....It will.

Otherwise, I'm pretty much on my own.

 

[Thief]

Oh..btw....The Lord's Prayer is more than request.
It is a statement of commitment.
You proclaim yourself a son of God as the Prayer begins.
Heaven hears it.
So too the devil.