If there could be a God, couldn't people experience him?

[tumbleweed41]

I will agree that it can happen that people think they are having an experience with God and not be. But I don't agree that is always the case.

How does one determine that another has actually "experienced God"?

 

[Acim]

I would answer that with Trust.

I think it could show up as faith, belief, understanding, opinion and the like. Though Trust is way I would put it especially if perception is with 'other.'

 

[tumbleweed41]

How does one determine that another has actually "experienced God"?

I would answer that with Trust.

Trust that that person has actually experienced God?
What of conflicting experiences?
Do we trust Saul of Tarsus, or Muhammad?

Joseph Smith, or Zarathustra?

Bahá'u'lláh, or Mary Baker Eddy?

Charles Manson, or David Koresh?

 

[Acim]

Up to you.

I trust Inner Guide which allows me to see (perhaps causes me to see is better way to put it) Spirit in each of the instances you inquired about.

I honestly believe "we" collectively trust Inner Guide. I also believe we do this individually, but admittedly individuals can show up lost, in denial, convinced the opposite is true, etc. And lo and behold, I too can show up like these same individuals, on occasion.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Up to you.

I trust Inner Guide which allows me to see (perhaps causes me to see is better way to put it) Spirit in each of the instances you inquired about.

I honestly believe "we" collectively trust Inner Guide. I also believe we do this individually, but admittedly individuals can show up lost, in denial, convinced the opposite is true, etc. And lo and behold, I too can show up like these same individuals, on occasion.

Do you believe the followers of each of the individuals I mentioned followed their "Inner Guide"?

 

[waitasec]

if god were real...
we'd experience it like we experience air... without question.

 

[Acim]

Do you believe the followers of each of the individuals I mentioned followed their "Inner Guide"?

I believe, in very general, and ultimately hypothetical terms, that the followers did not. Stipulations here though are critical, and would just add that they did not, according to my belief, much of the time. Some of the time, I would say yes (entirely likely), but much of the time, I would believe not.

Though I am open to being corrected on this. And feel Inner Guide is providing 'correction' as I type this.

 

[tumbleweed41]

I believe, in very general, and ultimately hypothetical terms, that the followers did not. Stipulations here though are critical, and would just add that they did not, according to my belief, much of the time. Some of the time, I would say yes (entirely likely), but much of the time, I would believe not.

So sometimes, though generally not, but often so. You feel that it may be correct, but often wrong, in the context one uses when sticking your wooden arm out of the closed window to feel if it is raining on a sunny day with cloud cover....:sarcastic

 

[Acim]

So sometimes, though generally not, but often so. You feel that it may be correct, but often wrong, in the context one uses when sticking your wooden arm out of the closed window to feel if it is raining on a sunny day with cloud cover....:sarcastic

In context of, I believe it will rain in 10 minutes, because Inner Guide told me to check radar, and radar has some green and yellow blotches over, or near, my physical location. In fact, it is precisely 7 miles west of where I live. Therefore, I believe it will rain in approximately 10 minutes.

(10 minutes later no rain. 30 minutes later, no rain.)

I believe I may have been mistaken. And lo and behold, recent radar shows pattern of how it just missed my physical location by 198 yards. Hmmm, I really did believe, given the context, that it would be raining here.

 

[tumbleweed41]

I believe, in very general, and ultimately hypothetical terms, that the followers did not. Stipulations here though are critical, and would just add that they did not, according to my belief, much of the time. Some of the time, I would say yes (entirely likely), but much of the time, I would believe not.

Though I am open to being corrected on this. And feel Inner Guide is providing 'correction' as I type this.

So sometimes, though generally not, but often so. You feel that it may be correct, but often wrong, in the context one uses when sticking your wooden arm out of the closed window to feel if it is raining on a sunny day with cloud cover....:sarcastic

In context of, I believe it will rain in 10 minutes, because Inner Guide told me to check radar, and radar has some green and yellow blotches over, or near, my physical location. In fact, it is precisely 7 miles west of where I live. Therefore, I believe it will rain in approximately 10 minutes.

(10 minutes later no rain. 30 minutes later, no rain.)

I believe I may have been mistaken. And lo and behold, recent radar shows pattern of how it just missed my physical location by 198 yards. Hmmm, I really did believe, given the context, that it would be raining here.

 

[Man of Faith]

You misunderstand what I'm saying. I'm saying that no one is justified in believing in god by someone else's personal experience.

I read reviews all the time and am happy to purchase items from good reviews. However, what were talking about is standards of evidence.

Let me give you an example. If you were to tell me that your name is Bob, I'm happy to take you at your word, because it doesn't make much of a difference whether your name is Bob, Fred or Francisco. You could be lying to me, but I would be willing to take you at your word.

Now, if you come to me and tell me that you had an experience where a Magical pixie appeared before you and granted you three wishes. I wouldn't believe you based purely on your personal experience. That kind of claim would need much more evidence to justify it.

And you know this yourself. It's the reason why you don't believe the claims that other religions make.

What you did was change from something that most atheists accept could be true, the existence of God, to something that I suspect most atheists don’t accept could be true, magical pixies. If most people accepted that magical pixies could be true then they should also accept that people could have experiences with them.

The same thing with God, if you accept that there could be a God, then logically you should accept that people could have experiences with him or her. And if people could have experiences with God then you should at least be open to the possibility that some of their testimony of experiences with God could be true. You shouldn’t logically discount all testimonies of experiences with God as something other than that when you accept that there could be a God.

 

[Man of Faith]

My problem with the idea of someone experiencing God is that there are lots of things that people hear? He, supposedly, speaks to all of these people. My problem comes from the idea that Zeus, God, Allah, Krishna, Satan, Mary, The Saints, Dead Loved Ones, Dead Animals, Aliens, etc are all talking to these people. How should an Atheist go about determining who is crazy and who isn't? If it is possible that one of these groups of people (with many people within each group) are crazy then it is possible they all are and that there is a psychological aspect at work here.

Knowing which supernatural beings are real and exists is outside the scope of this post. For the point and discussions of this post, it doesn’t necessarily matter. You pick which being you consider as a possibility could exist, if any, and then you logically should consider that it is possible of that being, interacting with humans and humans could experience them.

 

[Man of Faith]

How does one determine that another has actually "experienced God"?

That is really outside the scope of this post, however if millions of people say the same thing or similar things about their experience then that is a good start. I agree that just because people agree on something doesn't mean that it is true, however if you agree that God could exist and people testify to their experience with him then that should be something for you to consider.

How do you know who you meet? If someone describes someone else to you, their personality, or description, what they have done or where they have been, then when you meet that person you will know them. If you meet God, Allah, Jesus, Zeus or the devil you will know which is which because of their historical descriptions.

 

[Falvlun]

What you did was change from something that most atheists accept could be true, the existence of God, to something that I suspect most atheists don’t accept could be true, magical pixies. If most people accepted that magical pixies could be true then they should also accept that people could have experiences with them.

The same thing with God, if you accept that there could be a God, then logically you should accept that people could have experiences with him or her. And if people could have experiences with God then you should at least be open to the possibility that some of their testimony of experiences with God could be true. You shouldn’t logically discount all testimonies of experiences with God as something other than that when you accept that there could be a God.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If we had the experience of other people plus some other evidence, then that might be enough. The alien example given earlier was quite apt. I believe the existence of aliens to be possible, even probable, but I doubt the testimony of people who claim to have seen one, or been abducted by them.

Additionally, there are other, plausible explanations for God experiences. Often, these experiences happen to people who already believe in God. These experiences, then, could just be self-fullfilling prophecies: something which would ordinarily be given an alternate explanation is given the God explanation since you believe that God exists and does things like this.

The God hypothesis is very prevalent in society, so naturally, our minds might tend in that direction. If garden gnomes were just as prevalent a hypothesis, then more people would probably be claiming to have experiences with garden gnomes.

Lastly, humans don't like not knowing things. It's much easier to say "This experience was God" rather than to admit "Hey, that was really weird and I have no idea what just happened." We tend to personify things, because that makes them more familiar, more comfortable to us.

Due to these various explanations and the extraordinary nature of the claim, the experience of other people alone is not enough to convince me of the existence of God.

 

[Man of Faith]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If we had the experience of other people plus some other evidence, then that might be enough. The alien example given earlier was quite apt. I believe the existence of aliens to be possible, even probable, but I doubt the testimony of people who claim to have seen one, or been abducted by them.

Additionally, there are other, plausible explanations for God experiences. Often, these experiences happen to people who already believe in God. These experiences, then, could just be self-fullfilling prophecies: something which would ordinarily be given an alternate explanation is given the God explanation since you believe that God exists and does things like this.

The God hypothesis is very prevalent in society, so naturally, our minds might tend in that direction. If garden gnomes were just as prevalent a hypothesis, then more people would probably be claiming to have experiences with garden gnomes.

Lastly, humans don't like not knowing things. It's much easier to say "This experience was God" rather than to admit "Hey, that was really weird and I have no idea what just happened." We tend to personify things, because that makes them more familiar, more comfortable to us.

Due to these various explanations and the extraordinary nature of the claim, the experience of other people alone is not enough to convince me of the existence of God.

The purpose of this post isn’t to convince anyone of the existence of God, just to point out the illogical stance that people can’t have experiences with God when there could be a God. It may be extraordinary, however if you accept that it is possible that there is a God then logically you should accept that people could have experiences with him or her and know it.

 

[Acim]

This...

Knowing which supernatural beings are real and exists is outside the scope of this post. For the point and discussions of this post, it doesn’t necessarily matter. You pick which being you consider as a possibility could exist, if any, and then you logically should consider that it is possible of that being, interacting with humans and humans could experience them.

and this....

The purpose of this post isn’t to convince anyone of the existence of God, just to point out the illogical stance that people can’t have experiences with God when there could be a God. It may be extraordinary, however if you accept that it is possible that there is a God then logically you should accept that people could have experiences with him or her and know it.

Strike me as very simple points being made.

I think resistance, thus far, has to do with perception that you are reaching further than what you are posting.

I feel for you bro.

 

[tumbleweed41]

... however if you agree that God could exist and people testify to their experience with him then that should be something for you to consider..

I can agree that God, at least a deistic concept of God, could exist.
But the idea that this being would deign to reveal itself to a select few humans in order for them to spread unverifiable hearsay is beyond reason.

 

[Man of Faith]

I can agree that God, at least a deistic concept of God, could exist.
But the idea that this being would deign to reveal itself to a select few humans in order for them to spread unverifiable hearsay is beyond reason.

You bring up a good point, but of course you aren't an atheist that says that there could be a God. You are a Deist and Deism accepts that there is a God and subscribes that God does not intervene in human affairs. I can see a scenario where an atheist could say that there could be a God and if there is a God then he is a Deistic God, therefore I don’t have to accept that humans could have experiences with him or her.

That would be sort of like me saying I don’t believe in aliens, yet there could be aliens, and if there are aliens, they don’t interfere or interact with humans. That doesn’t seem logical to me that I could force my description upon something that I don’t accept as real. It might be the case that most atheists think that if there is a God then he is a Deistic type of God, I don’t know. However with all the testimonies of people saying they have interactions with God then logically they should consider that also. And if I thought there could be aliens, then logically I should consider peoples testimonies of interactions with them.

 

[Man of Faith]

This...



and this....



Strike me as very simple points being made.

I think resistance, thus far, has to do with perception that you are reaching further than what you are posting.

I feel for you bro.

I wonder if the resistance is because people don't want to consider that peoples experiences with God are real. That would mean that people could experience God and why are they not experienceing God. Which of course would lead to them questioning their nonbelief in God. It is easier to say "there could be a God" and "your experience with God is an illusion". That helps maintain a nonbelief scenario.

 

[waitasec]

However with all the testimonies of people saying they have interactions with God then logically they should consider that also.

i'll take it with a truck load of salt...