Experiencing God

[Sonofason]

On occasion I share the reason I left Christianity for 20+ years and became Atheist and the experience that led me back to God(swt) and accepting Islam.
I tend not to do so often and usually just share it with Muslims.
I am not an advocate for any form of proselytizing and believe each person is responsible for what they believe and has the obligation to search all things. If a person believes because of an experience another person had, might be believing for the long reasons.

To share a "Spiritual Experience" with God(swt) can often drive a person away from searching, especially if they view it as delusional or some form of "brain washing"

I have to admit, I've never thought about that. It could very well be that what you are saying is true. Thanks for your answer.

 

[Thief]

Geeesss! I hate that expression!

It is ridiculous to say such things about people that don't have your experience, or that have a different experience, or debate your experience, or don't believe it, etc.


It is the same as calling every person on this DEBATE site, - that doesn't agree with you, - swine.




*

I noticed he did say....the risk would be his for the quote.

I think I will start a thread about it.

 

[mystic64]

You know, it's hard for me to take what you say seriously when you tell us, effectively, that you pulled it all out of your butt:

From the mouth of babes Penguin .

 

[mystic64]

Science has chosen not to deal with the supernatural because there is no expectation of the supernatural to follow natural laws.

Supernatural claims by their nature can't be validated. You can't even validate the claim yourself.

You accept this because?

I'm assuming you have chosen to accept the authority of the Bible. Again, because?

These are claims you have no personal experience with. It can be the same with science. People can accept the authority without doing the actual testing. Trusting others to verify you experience.

You can believe it, you just can't expect anyone else to accept something they haven't verified for themselves, whether religion or science. But, people do.

I've been fooled enough by the claims of people whether of a religious nature or scientific nature that I don't accept anything that I haven't verified for myself.

I can believe a lot of things but that doesn't mean I'm going to accept the reality of something I've no personal knowledge of.

If God provided me personally with the vision of Revelation I'd probably accept it as the reality of my experience. However I don't know John, the author of Revelations. Why should I even start to trust the claims of a person I don't know?

What you have said Nakosis is very well said! I'm assuming that you have chosen to accept the authority of the Bible. Again, because? To me Nakosis the Christian Bible is an interesting curiosity as are all other religious works and legends. And to be honest with you Nakosis nobody both past and present would agree with "my " interpretation of that piece of scripture that is located somewhere in the book of revelations. Nobody . Which is why Penguin's posted responce is so universally cool! And like you I do not accept something as real unless I have personal knowledge of it. At the sametime I am willing to consider a lot of things "maybes" because of other things that I have personal experiences with. And I do have personal experience as an empath that all minds have an individual unique energy frequency signature. And if it is an energy, then it can be measured. Also, all supernatural stuff has to follow the laws of physics. Take the study of shamanizm, the first thing that you learn is how to apply the three laws of motion. This is because it will not work if you don't. Energy is energy no matter what creates its movement and the laws of physics always apply. Always.

 

[mystic64]

There is no such thing as magic, including God. And all has to follow the laws of physics, including God.

 

[Cephus]

What exactly is the evidence that a cabin in the middle of the woods is a product of causality and purpose. Clearly we see people building cabins in the woods, and we see that when they do so, those cabins have causality and purpose. But what of other cabins that we have not seen anyone build. We happen upon them, and they're just there. How do you distinguish a cabin in the woods that has no causality and purpose from a cabin in the woods that does?

But we can only recognize it by comparing and contrasting the cabin with those things we see that come about naturally and those things that do not. We take a look at those things that we find in nature and come about without human intervention and we take a look at those things that are demonstrably created by man and we decide which of these two things any given structure that we find in the woods is most similar to. That's how we make these determinations. So what do you go look at when you want to compare the natural world to something created by a god? Where is something that has been demonstrably created by a god? Where is your frame of reference? All you can do is imagine what you think such a thing might look like, we're not really talking about an actual comparison, but your imagination of how a comparison might look.

For me, the Bible was the link. I read it, I believed it, and as a result I experience God, all the time now. There was a direct causal link. I do not have to show that my experiences are from God in order to believe that my experiences are from God. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. I act. I experience. I perceive. I believe. It is you that is without. What I mean by that is that it is not a requirement for me to show anything to anyone in order to believe what I believe, however it is most essential, apparently, that you see what I have experienced in order to even explore the possibility that I have indeed experienced what I believe I have experienced. And since I cannot show you, you will of course remain in a state without, because you are unwilling to act.

Yet that's entirely ***-backwards. Whether you believe in God or not, if you have an experience with God or not, you have an experience with God. Belief is irrelevant to truth. Secondly, belief in a thing does not make that thing true. Truth is true, if and only if it is objectively true. Whether you believe that a true thing is true or not is irrelevant to it's truth value, likewise if something that you believe is true is actually false, your belief doesn't make it any less false. Since you have no way of objectively demonstrating that your beliefs are factually true and your beliefs have no bearing on the actual truth of a proposition, your beliefs get thrown out as having any objective value whatsoever. So let's get down to brass tacks. You have an experience and it really doesn't matter what that experience is. You attribute the source of that experience to God. It is a blind attribution because you have no way of actually demonstrating that the cause of your experience was actually God. You simply believe it to be so. You've got nothing and if you were intellectually honest with yourself, you'd acknowledge that you've got nothing. You have belief. Nothing more. Belief proves nothing about reality.

I'm sorry, it was a fact that light is a wave, and it is a fact that waves need a medium for which to propagate. It was not a belief, but a proven fact. Indeed the ether was an assumption that was based on a proven fact. It could very well be that the speed of light is an assumption that is based on a proven fact.

Light is both a particle and a wave, but we'll just go with it for the moment. The fact that people used to think there was an ether was based on their incorrect understanding of the way light operates. There was never any actual evidence for such an ether, it was just an assumption based on a lack of understanding. As people learned more, the idea of ether was rejected as unsupported, exactly how science is supposed to work. In fact, it's a lot like God. There is no actual evidence for God, it's based on an incorrect understanding of the way reality works. We've learned a lot about the universe and as we've done so, we've found that there isn't any real need to have a God in the picture and as such, belief in God is falling apart worldwide. It won't be long until the majority of people reject this unsupported belief.

I believe in God because I experience God. Like the speed of light, my belief is supported. Convince me of something else, and I will believe that. Until then, I see no reason to assume I'm wrong.

No, you believe you experience God because you believe in God. Other people who believe in other deities believe they have experiences with those other deities. The belief comes first, the belief that such causes your experience comes after. And yes, if you had faith in another god, you'd believe that other god was the cause of your experiences too. It happens that way all around the world every day.

Okay..I have actual evidence of God, and you ought to accept that.

No, if you had actual evidence, you could present it for objective testing. Let us know when you can do that.

 

[Nakosis]

There is no such thing as magic, including God. And all has to follow the laws of physics, including God.

Are you certain?

I don't have a problem with an all powerful God, throwing omniscience in there complicates things.

I'm just saying though, I certainly don't know, if there is a God, whether that God has to follow any laws. So where does your certainty come from.

 

[Cephus]

Are you certain?

I don't have a problem with an all powerful God, throwing omniscience in there complicates things.

I'm just saying though, I certainly don't know, if there is a God, whether that God has to follow any laws. So where does your certainty come from.

I can't say for him but I have no certainty that there is no God, nor do I ever make a claim that I do. However, until there is objective evidence for such an entity, I am not going to believe, nor am I going to start playing "what if" games regarding such entities. I don't worry what might be true of magical unicorns until I have any rational reason whatsoever to think that magical unicorns are a serious possibility. I'll wait until we have any good reason to think it's a good belief to hold before I start worrying about the ramifications of the belief.

Wishful thinking isn't impressive.

 

[Thief]

I can't say for him but I have no certainty that there is no God, nor do I ever make a claim that I do. However, until there is objective evidence for such an entity, I am not going to believe, nor am I going to start playing "what if" games regarding such entities. I don't worry what might be true of magical unicorns until I have any rational reason whatsoever to think that magical unicorns are a serious possibility. I'll wait until we have any good reason to think it's a good belief to hold before I start worrying about the ramifications of the belief.

Wishful thinking isn't impressive.

So you prefer to sit on the fence ..with your eyes covered.

I say the creation had a cause....it was God.

 

[Muffled]

Why would you consider the last gospel to be written to be the most accurate? Usually, eyewitness reliability decreases over time.

I believe seeing clearly does not mean accuracy; it means understanding what is going on.

However for the sake of argument memories vary and some people remember things well past the event when others don't so I believe time is not a good mesure of accuracy.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I believe seeing clearly does not mean accuracy; it means understanding what is going on.

However for the sake of argument memories vary and some people remember things well past the event when others don't so I believe time is not a good mesure of accuracy.

Time isn't the whole story, sure, but a long span of time is a strike against the reliability of a witness account.

Nevertheless, maybe John has marks in favour of its reliability that outweigh this strike. What are they?

 

[Muffled]

Well, don't know many muslims. Just a couple from India. And they both experienced Allah, allegedely, and that was the trigger for their conversions. Of course, they also come from muslim families. If you google around you will read about more.

As concerns Christians, I know a lot who thinks they have a personal relationship with God. Now, how can you have a personal relationship with someone you do not experience?

Now, how do I know that they experience different Gods and not the same? Well, one says that He had a son and the other doesn't. And I am sure that the same deity cannot get confused about His own family.

Ciao

- viole

I believe a personal relationship with God does not require a direct experience because He is quite capable of working in the background. For instance after my intial experience with God I didn't have another one for some time but all of that time God was working in the background to change my life.

I believe Muslims and Christians are often mistaken about what God says and this is one of those instances.

 

[Muffled]

Time isn't the whole story, sure, but a long span of time is a strike against the reliability of a witness account.

Nevertheless, maybe John has marks in favour of its reliability that outweigh this strike. What are they?

I believe one is detail. A more detailed account is more likely to be accurate than a vague account. Second is whether the person has his own agenda. I believe Matthew has his own agenda and Peter (Mark) has his own agenda but John appears to be centered on Jesus and His agenda.

 

[Muffled]

I think the evidence is pretty clear.

If you come from a Christian family and you have religious tendencies, then it is overwhelmingly more probable that Jesus speaks to you and not Allah.

The contrary if you grow up in a muslim family.

Why is that? Does God check what our families believe before talking to us? Why am I so good in guessing the religion of someone parents and neighbors when I know his own religion. Am i psychic?

Or is there a simpler explanation?

Ciao

- viole

I believe God works with us according to our situation. It would make no sense for Him to talk to a Christain about Allah if the person had no background unless He had a purpose in doing so.

 

[mystic64]

Are you certain?

I don't have a problem with an all powerful God, throwing omniscience in there complicates things.

I'm just saying though, I certainly don't know, if there is a God, whether that God has to follow any laws. So where does your certainty come from.

Yours is a good question Nakosis. Without physical laws there can be no predictability and without predictability not even magic/majik can exist. Also without physical laws to create predictability not even God can exist. Existance by definition is based on some kind of predictability. The problem is that the science of physics is still trying to understand the laws of physics that are creating the physics of what we perceive as physical reality. And like Stephen Hawking said in his younger days once we understand how it is done then we do not need God anymore. "Am I certain ?" I don't know. Maybe ? Does God have to follow any laws? Well if He doesn't, then predictability disappears and everything ceases to exist. Up to and maybe including Himself. Here is the thing Nakosis, everything in creation has a fibrational frequency and for every vibrational frequency there is an opposite frequency that cancels that frequency. Everything that we consider the predictable laws of our physical world can be canceled, whether we do it or God does it. So far, if there is a God, then He has not done it that we know of. So the next question is, "Are we going to do it, once we know how?" And of course all of that follows the laws of physics.

So Nakosis, what do you think? Can humankind survive itself without guidance from a greater mind that has been around for a while. A mind that actually would like us to survive to whatever maturity is? A mind that is possibly actively attempting to share its presence with some of us? Am I certain that I have experienced God? Yes, Why? Because you walk off differnt in interesting ways once you have actually experienced God.

 

[Cephus]

So you prefer to sit on the fence ..with your eyes covered.

I say the creation had a cause....it was God.

And you pulled that straight out of your backside. You have no evidence that it's actually so, you decided it because it appeals to you. It's no better than someone who thinks magical universe-creating pixies did it. I choose to reserve judgement and actually come to the factually correct conclusion. My way is intellectually superior to yours.

 

[john2054]

Hi Cephus, I hate to rain on your parade, but as a former atheist i have to question what you have stated here! Also please keep your ad hominems for your facebook torrent, and not here okay?

 

[Thief]

And you pulled that straight out of your backside. You have no evidence that it's actually so, you decided it because it appeals to you. It's no better than someone who thinks magical universe-creating pixies did it. I choose to reserve judgement and actually come to the factually correct conclusion. My way is intellectually superior to yours.

Cause and effect is an axiom.
Attempting to separate that relationship is futile.
The singularity is NOT 'self' creating.
God is the Cause.

 

[Bunyip]

Cause and effect is an axiom.

No it isn't I'm afraid Thief, it is not a scientific law either.

Attempting to separate that relationship is futile.
The singularity is NOT 'self' creating.
God is the Cause.

 

[Thief]

No it isn't I'm afraid Thief, it is not a scientific law either.

You can't have science without the experiment.
The experiment relies on the relationship.
What we have on hand is beyond science ....but the axiom remains.