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

[Tristesse]

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.

No, thats not what I did.

I accept that a god could exist in the same respect that pixies could exist. In fact, Pixies are more probable than a god, in my opinion.

I accept that their experiences with a god could be true, but thats not evidence for me or anyone else, thats there own personal evidence. It could be true, just like the magical pixies could be true. But I would not be justified beliving in a god or magical pixies based on someone else's experience. It's an extaordinary claim and would need substantial evidence to claim it's veracity.

If someone else's personal experience were enough to justify belief in that god. Why are you not a Hindu or a muslim? Other religions have personal experiences too, and you probably don't think their personal experience is enough to believe them for the same reason I don't believe you or anyone else who has a personal experience with a deity. The mind is easily manipulated.

 

[waitasec]

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.

if you consider skepticism as resistance...sure. but, what's wrong with that?
i used to believe, and i'm sure many atheists did too...
for me, i've been there and done that... that is why i am skeptical with claims that are extraordinary...it's most likely to be an emotional plea, imho.

 

[Man of Faith]

No, thats not what I did.

I accept that a god could exist in the same respect that pixies could exist. In fact, Pixies are more probable than a god, in my opinion.

I accept that their experiences with a god could be true, but thats not evidence for me or anyone else, thats there own personal evidence. It could be true, just like the magical pixies could be true. But I would not be justified beliving in a god or magical pixies based on someone else's experience. It's an extaordinary claim and would need substantial evidence to claim it's veracity.

If someone else's personal experience were enough to justify belief in that god. Why are you not a Hindu or a muslim? Other religions have personal experiences too, and you probably don't think their personal experience is enough to believe them for the same reason I don't believe you or anyone else who has a personal experience with a deity. The mind is easily manipulated.

You seem to be saying that someone’s personal experience with God or a magical pixie is an extraordinary claim because you are asking for extraordinary evidence. Yet you don’t seem to think that believing in God or magical pixies are extraordinary beliefs because you haven’t asked for extraordinary evidence for that. I’m having a tough time understanding why the difference.

Why does believing in God or magical pixies not require extraordinary evidence but accepting that people could have experiences with them does require extraordinary evidence? Or do you have the extraordinary evidence that it takes to believe in God or magical pixies? It would seem to me that if you accept that there could be a God or magical pixies without any extraordinary evidence then you should accept that people could have experiences with them without extraordinary evidence.

 

[Man of Faith]

if you consider skepticism as resistance...sure. but, what's wrong with that?
i used to believe, and i'm sure many atheists did too...
for me, i've been there and done that... that is why i am skeptical with claims that are extraordinary...it's most likely to be an emotional plea, imho.

It's fine to be skeptical but not illogical. Of course skepticism is self defeating because the skeptic doesn’t claim to be skeptical of their own beliefs. And if they did, then they wouldn’t know what to believe or be skeptical on.

It is illogical to believe in a God and not believe that people can have experiences with him unless you already have a belief as to what God is out there and what traits he or her has. In other words if you are an atheist, who lacks a belief in God, but considers there could be a God then it is illogical to not consider that it is possible for people to have experiences with that God.

 

[Falvlun]

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.

Oh. Okay. I agree then. If it is possible that God exists, then it is possible that people have experiences with God. I have no beef with that formulation.

But just to point out, it is not illogical to reject that true experiences with God have occurred. After all, if I believed that people were actually experiencing God, I wouldn't just believe that God was possible: I would believe that God was actual.

 

[Man of Faith]

Oh. Okay. I agree then. If it is possible that God exists, then it is possible that people have experiences with God. I have no beef with that formulation.

But just to point out, it is not illogical to reject that true experiences with God have occurred. After all, if I believed that people were actually experiencing God, I wouldn't just believe that God was possible: I would believe that God was actual.

And this is the point that I was alluding to in my response to Acim. Atheists have to reject every persons claim that they have had an experience with God because if they don’t then they have to accept that there is a God, even if it is just one person that has had an experience with God.

So the atheist’s position is there could be a God, people could have experiences with him or her, yet whenever anybody claims to have an experience, it is rejected. That is illogical.

 

[waitasec]

[It's fine to be skeptical but not illogical.

it wouldn't be illogical if skepticism is in accordance with known conditions when considering rationality.

for example:
i was almost killed by a car, was god intervening...i'd say no, why? because my friends 3 yr old son was diagnosed with a brain tumor...it is what it is...
some avoid things via split second timing, others are born with a condition.

Of course skepticism is self defeating because the skeptic doesn’t claim to be skeptical of their own beliefs.
And if they did, then they wouldn’t know what to believe or be skeptical on.

if you replace the word skepticism/skeptical with an illogical conclusion/illogical person, i'd agree.

It is illogical to believe in a God and not believe that people can have experiences with him unless you already have a belief as to what God is out there and what traits he or her has.

i'd say, that is a dilemma for you to solve...

In other words if you are an atheist, who lacks a belief in God, but considers there could be a God then it is illogical to not consider that it is possible for people to have experiences with that God.

it depends on the label people place on said god...or whatever it may be.
for instance god is understood to be a loving god...i completely disagree not that i think god is a hating god but god hasn't shown his creation anything but indifference...that is what i observe.
so if there is a god, no one can say god is this or that...because no one can know only speculate...otherwise if god was to be understood empirically there wouldn't be so many interpretations of what god is...

when it rains, it rains. we don't call it anything else or interpret as anything else...because we have no choice but to accept that it is raining.
does that make sense?

 

[Tristesse]

You seem to be saying that someone’s personal experience with God or a magical pixie is an extraordinary claim because you are asking for extraordinary evidence. Yet you don’t seem to think that believing in God or magical pixies are extraordinary beliefs because you haven’t asked for extraordinary evidence for that. I’m having a tough time understanding why the difference.

Why does believing in God or magical pixies not require extraordinary evidence but accepting that people could have experiences with them does require extraordinary evidence? Or do you have the extraordinary evidence that it takes to believe in God or magical pixies? It would seem to me that if you accept that there could be a God or magical pixies without any extraordinary evidence then you should accept that people could have experiences with them without extraordinary evidence.

Ok,let me clarify. I'm not doubting people's experiences. I believe that they had an experience that they are attributing to god. The difference is that I believe they are most likely mis-attributing the cause of their experience. Thats why you can have people of diferent religions having similiar experiences, but attributing different sources of that experience. If I believed everyone who had some personal experience, I'd be believing all kinds of rediculous crap.

I hope this clears up my position.

 

[Tristesse]

And this is the point that I was alluding to in my response to Acim. Atheists have to reject every persons claim that they have had an experience with God because if they don’t then they have to accept that there is a God, even if it is just one person that has had an experience with God.

So the atheist’s position is there could be a God, people could have experiences with him or her, yet whenever anybody claims to have an experience, it is rejected. That is illogical.

Nope. I believe that these people had an experience, but I don't believe what they claim the cause is. Neither do you. Do you believe that people have been abducted by aliens? I hope not. But think about it for a second. Why don't you believe their experience?

 

[Falvlun]

And this is the point that I was alluding to in my response to Acim. Atheists have to reject every persons claim that they have had an experience with God because if they don’t then they have to accept that there is a God, even if it is just one person that has had an experience with God.

So the atheist’s position is there could be a God, people could have experiences with him or her, yet whenever anybody claims to have an experience, it is rejected. That is illogical.

I don't find it illogical in the least. Certain parameters would have to be met for me to believe that people were actually experiencing God. Like Tristesse says, I believe that people are experiencing something, but that something doesn't have to be God.

Another important point to remember: While many of us atheists believe that God is possible. we do not believe that his existence is probable. His existence is as likely as say, the the world ending on Dec 21st, 2012. In other words, not very likely. And I hold that belief regardless of how many people truly do believe that the world will end on that date.

 

[Man of Faith]

Ok,let me clarify. I'm not doubting people's experiences. I believe that they had an experience that they are attributing to god. The difference is that I believe they are most likely mis-attributing the cause of their experience. Thats why you can have people of diferent religions having similiar experiences, but attributing different sources of that experience. If I believed everyone who had some personal experience, I'd be believing all kinds of rediculous crap.

I hope this clears up my position.

Thanks for that clarification and yes I do understand what you are saying however I need you to see the illogical position that atheists are in. Yes people can be mistaken about their experiences with God, however does that mean everybody is mistaken? There is no way to tell unless they are all investigated and proven yes or no, which practically and scientifically is impossible, at least right now.

Here is why the atheist position is illogical. Most atheists accept that there could be a God, no matter how remote of a possibility. Therefore logically they must accept that it is possible that people could experience God. Yet they must reject all experiences of God without prejudice or investigation because if they don’t then they can no longer intellectually be an atheist. Even if one persons experience with God is real their position is debunked. Rejecting every claim of an experience with God without investigations is illogical given that they accept the possibility of a God.

 

[Man of Faith]

I don't find it illogical in the least. Certain parameters would have to be met for me to believe that people were actually experiencing God. Like Tristesse says, I believe that people are experiencing something, but that something doesn't have to be God.

Another important point to remember: While many of us atheists believe that God is possible. we do not believe that his existence is probable. His existence is as likely as say, the the world ending on Dec 21st, 2012. In other words, not very likely. And I hold that belief regardless of how many people truly do believe that the world will end on that date.

It doesn’t matter the odds really, if atheists accept that there is a God, the logic flows just the same. If I say it is very improbable that there are Sasquatches, but I accept that there are, then I also must accept that it is possible for people to experience them and I must accept that some peoples claims that they have experience them could be true.

 

[Tristesse]

Thanks for that clarification and yes I do understand what you are saying however I need you to see the illogical position that atheists are in. Yes people can be mistaken about their experiences with God, however does that mean everybody is mistaken? There is no way to tell unless they are all investigated and proven yes or no, which practically and scientifically is impossible, at least right now.

Here is why the atheist position is illogical. Most atheists accept that there could be a God, no matter how remote of a possibility. Therefore logically they must accept that it is possible that people could experience God. Yet they must reject all experiences of God without prejudice or investigation because if they don’t then they can no longer intellectually be an atheist. Even if one persons experience with God is real their position is debunked. Rejecting every claim of an experience with God without investigations is illogical given that they accept the possibility of a God.

No, I never said that means everyone is mistaken. You're still misunderstanding me, somewhat.

It's entirely possible that a person is justified in their belief in a god based on their personal experience, but that experience only applies to that individual. I would not be justified based on the experience you or someone else had. Which reaches a problem, how do we go about determining who is having real experiences with a god as opposed to people who aren't? Isn't the only available evidence, the experience they had? So, this isn't about dismissing everyone's claims, this is about a practical matter, if the only evidence offered is personal experience, how do we accurately test that, to determine who's really having experiences with a god as opposed to those who aren't. If anything, it's more logical to ask for more evidence than to accept their "personal experience" at face value. Remember, they are the ones making the claim, they have the duty to provide sufficient evidence for their claim. It's not my job or anyone else's to weed out false claims from true one's. Especially, if the only evidence offered is from personal experience.

 

[atanu]

Most atheists or nonbelievers will admit that there could be a God, they just don't see any evidence for him or her. If there could be a God, then couldn't people experience him and if they do experience him, couldn't they know it?

I am not talking of a god located in a delineated space in a form. I have seen in every scripture that God is the Seer, God is the Knower -- but sometimes not so clearly.

So, who can see the Seer and who will know the Knower? Yet God is being experienced in every experience by every being all the time, without break. The problem is superimposition of an ego, which assumes ownership of the body, intelligence and the life energy itself.

Once a question arises "Who is this I?", even the ego realises that neither it owns nor has it created the intelligence-energy that characterises the body, which also has not been aggregated by it.

At this stage some may realise that the true "I" is deeper than the ego "i' and some others will attribute everything to chance or inanimate nature.The latter however do not recognise that with an intelligence understood to have arisen discretely in different bodies, one cannot investigate the reality before its emergence.

It is my opinion that failing to investigate in earnestness the nature and source of the Word "I" is the reason for wrong notions of God or for not experiencing God. The evidence is evident for a willing ego.

 

[Tristesse]

It doesn’t matter the odds really, if atheists accept that there is a God, the logic flows just the same. If I say it is very improbable that there are Sasquatches, but I accept that there are, then I also must accept that it is possible for people to experience them and I must accept that some peoples claims that they have experience them could be true.

If an atheist accepted that there is a god, well, he wouldn't be an atheist.

 

[waitasec]

Yes people can be mistaken about their experiences with God, however does that mean everybody is mistaken?

No, I never said that means everyone is mistaken. You're still misunderstanding me, somewhat.

It's entirely possible that a person is justified in their belief in a god based on their personal experience, but that experience only applies to that individual.

man of faith,
it seems to me that because so many people experience something they attribute to "god" then there must be one, right?

there is a problem with that, at least from my perspective. indoctrination.
religions seem to be in a perpetual state and people growing up in a certain religious tradition will continue with it...however, there are those who do question it but don't, mostly because of fear.

edit:
not a fear of god but fear of people.

yes religious people have experiences however, those are personal experiences ultimately.
i was reading christopher hitchens book, "god is not great" and he brought up an interesting point about this psalm, "the fools says there is no god". atheism has always been around, it's that if you were one to rock the boat you would be persecuted for doing so...that is why this person is considered a fool for coming out of the closet. why else do you think there is this ugly cloud hanging over the term atheist? are atheists really evil and wicked and eat their young for breakfast? today atheism/agnosticism is growing, posing a problem for the religious... because change is always hard.
so just because most people say there is a god doesn't really mean that there is, from an objective POV.

 

[Acim]

While many of us atheists believe that God is possible. we do not believe that his existence is probable. His existence is as likely as say, the the world ending on Dec 21st, 2012. In other words, not very likely. And I hold that belief regardless of how many people truly do believe that the world will end on that date.

Can you back that claim up of "as likely as"? If not, that is okay, but just wondering if it is only opinion.

Akin to me saying, "as likely as" sun rising in the east tomorrow. God's existence is that likely.

 

[waitasec]

Can you back that claim up of "as likely as"? If not, that is okay, but just wondering if it is only opinion.

Akin to me saying, "as likely as" sun rising in the east tomorrow. God's existence is that likely.

if i may,
the sun has been rising in the east...that is likely because it has been doing that for quite some time. gods existence is improbable...no one has empirical evidence that would compare to the sun rising every day in the east.


edit:
if you were to accept logic as backing up a claim...

 

[Acim]

It's entirely possible that a person is justified in their belief in a god based on their personal experience, but that experience only applies to that individual. I would not be justified based on the experience you or someone else had.

As a matter of trust, I would say you would be justified. If you have no reason to doubt this person's integrity, then you might rely on trust. Just as I might rely on trust for all the countless things science explores, observes and and makes conclusions about; whereas they do the testing (experience), and I do not, but trust the credibility.

Which reaches a problem, how do we go about determining who is having real experiences with a god as opposed to people who aren't?

Discernment. I believe this is what the atheist is using, but then we come back to understanding 'real experience.'

Isn't the only available evidence, the experience they had?

No. You are free to 'go within,' observe within, enter into introspection and find out for yourself, to what degree (in this case) this person is trustworthy. If asking within in way where you are essentially asking 'without' - then your version of 'evidence' may be different than person who has consistently identified within themselves a Higher Power, or God of their understanding, or Divine Internal Teacher, or (need I go on?)....

This is in fact how all evidence is arguably established, but given the way illusions work (emphasize work), it can be made to seem like there is evidence that is not only not 'of me,' but not 'in me.' It is manifested outside of me, or I believe (factually speaking) it is projection of the mind.

If anything, it's more logical to ask for more evidence than to accept their "personal experience" at face value.

But what if the "evidence" is intrinsically doctored. Like if I am in night dream, and character comes up to me saying, "this is reality." And I say, "where is the evidence." And they proceed to tell me that it is what I am seeing, hearing, touching, feeling. There is plenty of evidence all around to suggest this is reality. Want that character to kick you in the genitals to prove the point? If yes, just say so, because pain will be very good indicator that you are really in that reality.

When, intelligent, waking, less persuaded by illusions being will understand, even within the dream, that certain evidence is actually, "more illusion."

Remember, they are the ones making the claim, they have the duty to provide sufficient evidence for their claim. It's not my job or anyone else's to weed out false claims from true one's. Especially, if the only evidence offered is from personal experience.

LOL on "not your job." When arguably it is only job we have.

 

[Acim]

if i may,
the sun has been rising in the east...that is likely because it has been doing that for quite some time. gods existence is improbable...no one has empirical evidence that would compare to the sun rising every day in the east.

I have personal, empirical, evidence of the Divine, within me. I am certain you have it within "you." More certain than I am that sun will rise tomorrow.