Experiencing God

[Muffled]

This reminded me of a quote:

"Reality is that which, when you stop believing it, doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick

I like Dick's books.

It amazes me how easy it is for people to ignore the elephant in the room. Maybe if we don't look at it, then it isn't really there.

 

[Muffled]

No, your mother says she had an out of body experience. She has no objective evidence that she actually did. There is a difference.

I believe there is no way to get objective evidence of such a thing except the after death experiences when the person can tell what went on in the room while they were uconscious and dead.

 

[Cephus]

I believe there is no way to get objective evidence of such a thing except the after death experiences when the person can tell what went on in the room while they were uconscious and dead.

Then those experiences, are, by definition, unreliable. There have been plenty of experiments done, for people who claim they leave their bodies, both as NDEs and out-of-body experiences, where doctors will leave a sign on top of a cabinet that only someone floating in the room could see, and not a single one of these people who claims they left their bodies and were floating in the room have ever been able to tell them what the signs said. Not one. Now the person may sincerely believe that this happened to them, but belief and fact are two different things. I'm not interested in what someone says happened, I'm interested in what can actually be demonstrated happened. When you can do the latter, let me know.

 

[Muffled]

Then those experiences, are, by definition, unreliable. There have been plenty of experiments done, for people who claim they leave their bodies, both as NDEs and out-of-body experiences, where doctors will leave a sign on top of a cabinet that only someone floating in the room could see, and not a single one of these people who claims they left their bodies and were floating in the room have ever been able to tell them what the signs said. Not one. Now the person may sincerely believe that this happened to them, but belief and fact are two different things. I'm not interested in what someone says happened, I'm interested in what can actually be demonstrated happened. When you can do the latter, let me know.

If I were dead I would not be looking for a sign on top of a cabinet. The test is the null hypothesis since there is no proof that it is necessary for a person to look at a sign.

 

[Muffled]

You're just desperately looking for reasons why evidence doesn't exist because you're so emotionally committed to your silly beliefs. Until there is evidence, no rational person believes.

I believe I am being logical and as usual you are not.

 

[Muffled]

Actually I consider you 'wrong', until you present evidence otherwise, //we agree.

I believe my experiences with God are right. For instance my experience receiving Jesus as Lord and Savior. In my mind I was surrouned by a soft white light from which exuded love and peace. Then Jesus said to me: "I fill your cup with love, as much as you pour out your cup will never be empty." Love , peace and joy have been with me ever since and those are very real spiritual qualities.

 

[Desert Snake]

You can consider me anything you want, the whole forum considers you wrong. I'm with them.

That doesn't make any sense.

I believe my experiences with God are right. For instance my experience receiving Jesus as Lord and Savior. In my mind I was surrouned by a soft white light from which exuded love and peace. Then Jesus said to me: "I fill your cup with love, as much as you pour out your cup will never be empty." Love , peace and joy have been with me ever since and those are very real spiritual qualities.

I don't claim that your experiences are wrong, necessarily.

 

[Cephus]

I believe I am being logical and as usual you are not.

It doesn't matter what you believe, it matters what you can prove and, as usual, you've got nothing but wishful thinking. Being logical requires following the laws of logic.

 

[Muffled]

It doesn't matter what you believe, it matters what you can prove and, as usual, you've got nothing but wishful thinking. Being logical requires following the laws of logic.

I believe that goes to show how little you know about logic. Logic is not proof. You make claims about wishful thinking that you can't prove and the claims are not even logical. What they are is a priori thinking.

 

[Cephus]

I believe that goes to show how little you know about logic. Logic is not proof. You make claims about wishful thinking that you can't prove and the claims are not even logical. What they are is a priori thinking.

Logic is, by definition, "reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity". I don't see you operating that way. You're essentially saying "it makes sense to me" and calling that logic when it's nothing of the sort. There is an established methodology for determining what is actually true. Closing your eyes and wishing really, really hard isn't it.

 

[Sonofason]

Because, deep down, they're worried that it will sound ridiculous. They are right to be worried.

The reason we do not throw our pearls to swine is because we know they will trample them under their feet, and turn and tear us to pieces. (Mathew 7:6)

 

[Sonofason]

He has to believe in Christ. Jesus is the only way the truth and the life

The reason that we do not throw our pearls to swine is because we know they will trample them under their feet, and turn and tear us to pieces. (Mathew 7:6)

Your experiences are no more than a delusion that occurs as a result of neurochemical phenomena. Evolution has conspired to make religious belief and superstitions as well as visions and experiences more probable in humans because religious socities tended to be more ordered and succesful and so only the religious societies that succeeded passed their genes on. Thus we get a lot of people who think they're perfect and that their experiences are 100% true. It requires massive and breathtaking evidence not to be skeptical of the reliability of the human brain and the constant self deception we undergo.

All awareness of all experience is a result of neurochemical phenomena. So exactly what sort of a distinction are you trying to make?

 

[Sonofason]

Ridiculous "experiences" should be mocked, bad ideas should be questioned and faulty beliefs should be rejected. It's the only way that humanity improves.

Which is exactly the reason I will reject this particular notion of yours.

 

[Sonofason]

That religion is ridiculous? That's already well known.

Religion, rather belief in God, is only ridiculous to those who are incapable of experiencing God.

 

[Cephus]

Which is exactly the reason I will reject this particular notion of yours.

Because you don't want improvement? You still want to believe that disease is caused by evil spirits and everything bad has a supernatural cause? Seriously?

 

[Cephus]

Religion, rather belief in God, is only ridiculous to those who are incapable of experiencing God.

Only to those who are incapable of caring about reality, as it seems that the religious are.

 

[Sonofason]

A theological claim is more metaphorical and intuitive in nature. Theological claims are designed to help us make meaning of our life experiences, not to explain them or define them.

Can you please explain what you mean? It seems to me that scientific claims are also designed to help us make meaning of our life experiences. And theological claims often do explain and define our life experiences. So please explain better what distinguishes one from the other.

 

[Sonofason]

The reason you do not share them with people who demand a reasonable level of evidence is because they have pointed out to you repeatedly that a subjective, unfalsifiable, untestable "personal experience" counts as evidence only to the person who had it at best. And there is actually no way even for that person to verify that it represents what they think it did. When you add to that the fact that adherents of other religions claim the same personal experiences with their respective gods, the claim becomes useless.

A reasonable level of evidence is a subjective matter. What you consider reasonable, might not be reasonable to others. And there is only one God. And so a person's religion is not necessarily something that precludes a person from experiencing God. Therefore, I see no significance to the statement you made that "adherents of other religions claim the same personal experiences."

 

[Sonofason]

Or, given that we are all the same species, it might just mean that we are all subject to the same quirks and misfirings of our psychology. More is needed to establish that these experiences access anything external and real.

Please give me an example of an internal experience that anyone has had that is not dependent on any external forces.

 

[Sonofason]

That doesn't prove anything, because love is more than an emotional response. But do keep trying.

I agree with you completely. If I were to show you a photograph of a tree, and were to ask you what it was that I was showing you, you might say I was showing you a tree. But the truth is I am only showing you a photograph of a tree. A photograph of a tree doesn't even come close to representing everything that a tree is. A tree is not simply an image of some thing. It's a whole lot more. That which most often a great deal more than what it appears to be.