If and When We Experience God, How do We Know that God is Real?

[Windwalker]

Are you implying that "science says we're delusional"? I ask because that would be a very poor misunderstanding of the science presented in the OP, if you were referring to that.

Not at all. I embrace what science shows about it. I would expect it to show something is happening. What I was objecting to was the bad interpretation of it that would say to the members participating in the Mysticism Forum, "You've ruined everything for everyone here. Shut down the forum, it's all over folks." That interpretation seems to be one that says in effect "science has spoken and proven this is all hooey, so shut down shop and go home". That's an abuse of science, and hence my comments about making science the final arbiter of truth, like the way one quotes "The word of God".

Edit: Not sure if you saw that my comment was in response to the comments by the poster in post #18, not to the OP. I had already responded to the OP in post # 5 of this thread.

 

[Sunstone]

Not at all. I embrace what science shows about it. I would expect it to show something is happening. What I was objecting to was the bad interpretation of it that would say to the members participating in the Mysticism Forum, "You've ruined everything for everyone here. Shut down the forum, it's all over folks." That interpretation seems to be one that says in effect "science has spoken and proven this is all hooey, so shut down shop and go home". That's an abuse of science, and hence my comments about making science the final arbiter of truth, like the way one quotes "The word of God".

Edit: Not sure if you saw that my comment was in response to the comments by the poster in post #18, not to the OP. I had already responded to the OP in post # 5 of this thread.

I stand corrected. Thanks for the clarification!

 

[Windwalker]

I stand corrected. Thanks for the clarification!

Thanks for asking! I'm always happy to clarify rather than there being wrong assumptions. Perhaps I am wrong in my assumption about post #18, and that was just humor speaking. Not sure. Hard to tell without the benefit of knowing the person or them helping us along with the joke by using the cute little emoticons, like

 

[mystic64]

Not at all. I embrace what science shows about it. I would expect it to show something is happening. What I was objecting to was the bad interpretation of it that would say to the members participating in the Mysticism Forum, "You've ruined everything for everyone here. Shut down the forum, it's all over folks." That interpretation seems to be one that says in effect "science has spoken and proven this is all hooey, so shut down shop and go home". That's an abuse of science, and hence my comments about making science the final arbiter of truth, like the way one quotes "The word of God".

Edit: Not sure if you saw that my comment was in response to the comments by the poster in post 18, not to the OP. I had already responded to that in post 3 of this thread.

Science isn't done yet and those that are using incomplete science as final fact are coming prematurely . And lets face it, if those that are coming prematurely are allowed free reign in any DIR they will have ruined it for most everyone, but not for all of us . For some of us it can be just a game of minds at play and there is no win or lose there is just the game.

 

[Papoon]

So you are saying we're all delusional? Science says it, you believe it, that settles it for you? Thus saith the neuroscientist?

Man, get a grip. Try and appreciate tongue-in-cheek, pragmatism, the wisdom of insecurity or call it what you will.
As far as I'm concerned the only evidence there even IS a brain is the activity of the ALLEGED brain. So it's a circular epistemological mindfog anyway.
Now scream about my nihilistic solipsism.!
Sheesh...tough crowd.
This is NOT A WAR. Lighten up.

In other words mate, my post was just a chuckle.
Mysticism seems to be the domain of the humorless, based on some recent reactions to my posts. Apparently cosmic consciousness has a barrow to push which is just as turgid and militant as The New Atheism.

Edit - I just read your post to Sunstone where you acknowledged that my post may have been humor. Why didn't you just check that with me before going off ? I thought my post was obviously light- hearted. Just as I thought a recent post in the mysticism DIR was a useful and thoughtful contribution, but....ummm.....errrr.....I'm not allowed to finish this sentence because....ummmm...errrr. I can't tell you why. Rules.

 

[Windwalker]

Edit - I just read your post to Sunstone where you acknowledged that my post may have been humor. Why didn't you just check that with me before going off ? I thought my post was obviously light- hearted. Just as I thought a recent post in the mysticism DIR was a useful and thoughtful contribution, but....ummm.....errrr.....I'm not allowed to finish this sentence because....ummmm...errrr. I can't tell you why. Rules.

Yeah, when I had a few minutes I thought to myself this was just dry humor. I get it for sure. Why I knee-jerked on it? History. 10 years as a mod on a site where neo-atheists crucified anything that even resembled their parent religions where they switched allegiance from to Richard Dawkins and company. It was an uphill battle to explore any post theist, post-atheist thought without be attacked incessantly by the "pitchfork and woo" crowd, as I call them, hunting down to kill the monster they imagined they saw. Sorry about that. There's too much of that I've been exposed to, and it's my instinctive defensive against the irrationality of it all. Working on that.

 

[Papoon]

Yeah, when I had a few minutes I thought to myself this was just dry humor. I get it for sure. Why I knee-jerked on it? History. 10 years as a mod on a site where neo-atheists crucified anything that even resembled their parent religions where they switched allegiance from to Richard Dawkins and company. It was an uphill battle to explore any post theist, post-atheist thought without be attacked incessantly by the "pitchfork and woo" crowd, as I call them, hunting down to kill the monster they imagined they saw. Sorry about that. There's too much of that I've been exposed to, and it's my instinctive defensive against the irrationality of it all. Working on that.

Thanks for that. Respect. We are all works in progress

 

[mystic64]

If and When We Experience God, How do We Know that God is Real?"

I like this topic because it strikes at the foundation of the entire mystic experience if one is inclined toward Theism . And if one is inclined toward the Buddhist approach, then the whole question is moot because you are a mystic without a god/God. Humm? Proof?! Medical science can give you medication that will give you a mystic experience and medical science can give you medication that will stop you from having a mystic experience. So from the aspect of medical science the whole thing has to be a chemically indused phenomenon and the question of whether or not that God is real never comes up. That is one side of things. Now with the Buddhist approach one is exploring the abilities of one's own mind and again the concept of is God real never comes up. And with the Hindu self realization approach one becomes God (for lack of any other term) and when this happens there is definite proof that something is going on (at least relative to written and oral legend anyway ). And without this proof/manifested abilities you haven't achieved true self realization. How do you know that God is real? Well at least relative to self realization you have some God like abilities that can not be denied . God exists and you are God.

Proof that God is real? Now my approach to the mystic experience has been from the Christian mystic angle, the self realization angle, and from the Buddhist angle. All three angles/approaches. And what is funny is that they all three work ! They all bring you to the same place. The problem is that with the Christian tradition approach is that you have to over come a lot of that tradition to step into that place. And the same is true for the self realization approach. The only appraoch that you do not have to over come anything (except of course your own personality programming ) is the Buddhist approach, if of course you truly understand what the masters are saying. This is because the concept of God never comes up, it is just you exploring and establishing a rapport with the "unknown". And once you establish a rapport with the "unknown" the 'unknown" can become God, can become you, and it can become the "just is". It's "flavors" are adaptable . With my preference relative to "flavors" being to keep the "unknown" in the relm of the "just is".

How do I know that God is real and that what I am experiencing is real? First of all I define the "unknown" as God and I allow "it" to be the "just is" . From there I study the affect that a rapport with the "just is" has on me. Like self realization, like Christian saints, and like Buddhist saints there should be some evidence. I can't walk on water guys but I am different and I am constantly changing in positive unexpected ways. The experience is changing me. And I consider these changes as evidence that the "just is" is real. But then we come back to the question, "How do I know that God is real?" I personally know and hang out with Lord Jesus and Lord Shiva and "they" can affect things because I have seen it happen in my life. As enties they are real and because they are real I am inclined to strongly consider the possibility that God/the profoundly powerful force with a conscious mind is real. Those two entities have established a rapport with the "just is" and that rapport is what gives them the abilities that they have. They have proven to me that they are real because of their actions and because of what they have taught me. And what they have taught me and shown me is that the "just is" is real and now the "just is" is showing me that it is real by the changes that a relationship with it is creating within me. The game is a foot guys and things are interesting . Abilities? Lets just say that I am personally exploring things quietly.

 

[HeatherAnn]

Hi Sunstone,
I'm not a neurologist, but I do know that external observations of a brain (EEG) are a very different phenomena than what a mind experiences.
Gottfried Leibniz's theory of the monad (the subatomic simple substance of all matter) is similar to such differences.
And little by little, science is beginning to reveal more evidence for his theory, like Dr. Bruce Lipton's explanation of mind-body interactions.
A monad is based on perception and is indestructable by external means, but only pops into or out of existence by internal principles.
The mind is independent of brain activity, to an extent.
Obviously, brain activity has major influence over the mind, but it is not all 100%.
And when you consider that consciousness is energy, and energy never zaps out of existence, but changes form, there appears more probability that consciousness after physical death continues, in some way.

From a more practical perspective, "functional illusions are priceless!"
As you and others have pointed out, we cannot help but think in subjective ways - thinking we're being objective - thus our thoughts are illusional.
It seems most reasonable to me to consciously choose functional, healthy thoughts, over destructive, hopeless thoughts.
God, ideally, is a functional idea that helps us direct our thoughts to GOoD.
"This is the greatest paradox: the emotions cannot be trusted; yet it is the emotions that tell us the greatest truths."

 

[mystic64]

Hi Sunstone,
I'm not a neurologist, but I do know that external observations of a brain (EEG) are a very different phenomena than what a mind experiences.
Gottfried Leibniz's theory of the monad (the subatomic simple substance of all matter) is similar to such differences.
And little by little, science is beginning to reveal more evidence for his theory, like Dr. Bruce Lipton's explanation of mind-body interactions.
A monad is based on perception and is indestructable by external means, but only pops into or out of existence by internal principles.
The mind is independent of brain activity, to an extent.
Obviously, brain activity has major influence over the mind, but it is not all 100%.
And when you consider that consciousness is energy, and energy never zaps out of existence, but changes form, there appears more probability that consciousness after physical death continues, in some way.

From a more practical perspective, "functional illusions are priceless!"
As you and others have pointed out, we cannot help but think in subjective ways - thinking we're being objective - thus our thoughts are illusional.
It seems most reasonable to me to consciously choose functional, healthy thoughts, over destructive, hopeless thoughts.
God, ideally, is a functional idea that helps us direct our thoughts to GOoD.
"This is the greatest paradox: the emotions cannot be trusted; yet it is the emotions that tell us the greatest truths."

"Functional illusions are priceless!" I like that statement HeatherAnn ! And from this we could deduce that it does not matter what is real or not real as long as how we perceive reality is functional. I personally have to agree with that ! From there the battle becomes defining "functional". How do we know that God is real? We do not need to know as long as how we perceive God creates "functional". I personally agree with that also . Humm? "This is the greatest paradox: the emotions cannot be trusted; yet it is the emotions that tell us the greatest truths." This statement by definition is a functional illusion, the question that comes to mind is how is that statement functional? Generally when one first experiences the mystic experience they feel the emotion "love" and they experience the concept of "oneness" with something that is really big. Now if we approach this first mystic experience as an illusion, then the question becomes, "How can this experienced illusion be turned into a functional illusion?" And along with that question we have the emotion "love" which can not be trusted giving one the "greatest truth". The emotion "love" tells one that this feeling of oneness with something that is really big is a "greatest truth". Something that can be trusted. I had my first mystic experience when I was five years old when I made my first prayer to God in the name of Jesus Christ. Because I did not know if what I experienced was an illusion or not, what I experienced created curiosity in my five year old mind. From there I spent my life, over sixty years so far to the exclusion of almost everything else, exploring as a curiosity whether or not that first experience was an illusion or not.. Now HeatherAnn, if we approach things from how you seem to have presented them, I have now at sixty-six turned the illusion that I experienced at five years old into a "functional illusion" ! Yea !

But at the sametime, "How do I know that God is real and not an illusion?" Because illusion became "physical reality" in a functional way .

 

[HeatherAnn]

"Functional illusions are priceless!" I like that statement HeatherAnn ! And from this we could deduce that it does not matter what is real or not real as long as how we perceive reality is functional. I personally have to agree with that ! From there the battle becomes defining "functional". How do we know that God is real? We do not need to know as long as how we perceive God creates "functional". I personally agree with that also . Humm? "This is the greatest paradox: the emotions cannot be trusted; yet it is the emotions that tell us the greatest truths." This statement by definition is a functional illusion, the question that comes to mind is how is that statement functional? Generally when one first experiences the mystic experience they feel the emotion "love" and they experience the concept of "oneness" with something that is really big. Now if we approach this first mystic experience as an illusion, then the question becomes, "How can this experienced illusion be turned into a functional illusion?" And along with that question we have the emotion "love" which can not be trusted giving one the "greatest truth". The emotion "love" tells one that this feeling of oneness with something that is really big is a "greatest truth". Something that can be trusted. I had my first mystic experience when I was five years old when I made my first prayer to God in the name of Jesus Christ. Because I did not know if what I experienced was an illusion or not, what I experienced created curiosity in my five year old mind. From there I spent my life, over sixty years so far to the exclusion of almost everything else, exploring as a curiosity whether or not that first experience was an illusion or not.. Now HeatherAnn, if we approach things from how you seem to have presented them, I have now at sixty-six turned the illusion that I experienced at five years old into a "functional illusion" ! Yea !

But at the sametime, "How do I know that God is real and not an illusion?" Because illusion became "physical reality" in a functional way .

Hi Mystic,
Thank you for sharing your experiences and insights.
Although I probably don't phrase it this way, I try to consider if my perspectives are functional.
It's not easy because "the truth shall set you free" - and illusions (functional or not) is not truth.
But what is truth? If it's that which causes influence, then ironically, truth is not so much about facts as what influences.
It's like the boy who practically jumped off a clif, tumbling down, all scratched up and screaming - and explained that he saw a snake and described the snake.
Somebody explained, "Oh, that snake couldn't kill you."
The boy thought, "Oh, yes it almost did - making me jump off that cliff!"
Reality (or our idea of reality) is shaped by our beliefs, and visa versa.
I think that a good sense of self-awareness is important to discerning if some exciting ideas are functional or not.

How powerful is belief, really?
We know about placebo effect - and how our body can be drastically influenced, simply by belief - even when it's completely based on false ideas.
And there's the idea that subatomically, matter is affected simply by conscious focus.
Some say that there can be such a strong connection between people, that if something extraordinary happens to one, the other feels it, even if they're on others sides of the world.