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

[waitasec]

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.

correct me if i'm wrong but i thought empirical evidence was something everyone experiences...everyone experiences getting wet when swimming...what you seem to be describing is subjective experience...

 

[Acim]

correct me if i'm wrong but i thought empirical evidence was something everyone experiences...everyone experiences getting wet when swimming...what you seem to be describing is subjective experience...

I don't understand empirical as "everyone experience it." I think the argument for empiricism is that if any individual were to experience x, all individuals doing same thing / observing same thing would also experience x.

I am certain, based on my experiences of going within, that all people who go within, experience Divinity. Though they may attribute it to something else. At a certain level, I do believe it is impossible to not go within (at least several times a day).

 

[Falvlun]

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.

Notice all those "possibles" and "coulds" in there. Yes, we logically must accept that it is possible, that people could experience God (if we believe it is possible that God exists.) But that doesn't mean we have to accept that it actually happened.

Take this pretty mundane statement: "It is possible for it to rain today, therefore, it is possible that someone will experience being rained upon today."

Now, if someone came up to me and said "I just got rained on", but I was in the same town as him and didn't see a lick of rain, would I logically have to accept his word that it rained today? No, I wouldn't.

Now here is where we get to the subject of likelihood and probability. I know that it rains and I know that it was forecast to rain today, so there is a high probability that the guy was telling the truth and I just happened to miss the rain. I would probably believe him.

Contrast that to the claim of the experience of God. I have no prior evidence that God exists or that he interacts with people, never having that experience myself. God experiences are very unlikely to occur (in my opinion), so therefore, I am less inclined to believe someone when they say that they experienced God, and I didn't even feel a drop.

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.

It was just a "in my opinion" sort of statement.

 

[waitasec]

I don't understand empirical as "everyone experience it." I think the argument for empiricism is that if any individual were to experience x, all individuals doing same thing / observing same thing would also experience x.

I am certain, based on my experiences of going within, that all people who go within, experience Divinity. Though they may attribute it to something else. At a certain level, I do believe it is impossible to not go within (at least several times a day).

then it's subjective and not understood the same way...

i call it following ones integrity, you call it divinity...i don't see how these 2 experiences are a reflection of the same attribute...
because when i hear divinity i automatically think external, while integrity is internal.

 

[atanu]

then it's subjective and not understood the same way...

i call it following ones integrity, you call it divinity...i don't see how these 2 experiences are a reflection of the same attribute...
because when i hear divinity i automatically think external, while integrity is internal.

Think again waitasec. All minds are different. What Einstein infers from some observations not all people infer.

If two similar minds introspected/involuted their minds and held their awareness to inside of their minds for a length of time, without allowing movement of mind to externailty or to any thoughts, both minds are likey to experience the same divinity.

And there is very good correspondence among mystics on this experience. The internal experiences however, unfortunately cannot be objectively shown to external viewers.

 

[Man of Faith]

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.

An experience with God does not belong to just that one person if that person really did experience God. Just like when some people experience a snake bite, that doesn’t mean that only the people that have experienced snake bites can experience them, everybody can experience them if they put themselves in the same situation or environment.

If one person experiences God then that means there is a God period. And if you accept that there could be a God then you must accept that people could experience him or her and you must accept that some claims of people experiencing God could be true. That means you must give up your atheism today or accept that your position is illogical and you can live with that.

 

[Tristesse]

I don't understand empirical as "everyone experience it." I think the argument for empiricism is that if any individual were to experience x, all individuals doing same thing / observing same thing would also experience x.

I am certain, based on my experiences of going within, that all people who go within, experience Divinity. Though they may attribute it to something else. At a certain level, I do believe it is impossible to not go within (at least several times a day).

Empirical evidence has to do with testable, observable data. Personal experience doesn't fit this criteria, mainly because you can have individuals performing similiar rituals and each claiming a personal experience, but the experience differs from person to person. The source of their experience also differs. So, personal experience is not empirical evidence.

 

[Man of Faith]

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.

Yes atheism has been around a long time and it is growing mainly because of ignorance. Did you know that the discovery that the universe had a beginning was considered a death nail to atheism? I bet you didn’t know that. Atheists pushed back hard on that, they wouldn’t accept it because it validated the theist’s position. Of course they recovered from that and adapted because a belief is just that, a belief.

Did you know that atheists used to say that there was no God? Then they found out that position is indefensible because they couldn’t prove a negative. So they went to a new position that says that “there could be a God, but I see no evidence of him or her.” Now as of July 15, 2011 that position is indefensible because of the OP.

Atheist cannot say that there is no God because they cannot prove a negative, and now as of July 15, 2011 they cannot say that there could be a God, because if there could be a God then they have to accept that people could experience him or her and they have to accept that the some claims of people experiencing God could be true.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

MoF armwrestles Neitzsche.

 

[Tristesse]

An experience with God does not belong to just that one person if that person really did experience God. Just like when some people experience a snake bite, that doesn’t mean that only the people that have experienced snake bites can experience them, everybody can experience them if they put themselves in the same situation or environment.

If one person experiences God then that means there is a God period. And if you accept that there could be a God then you must accept that people could experience him or her and you must accept that some claims of people experiencing God could be true. That means you must give up your atheism today or accept that your position is illogical and you can live with that.

Ok, based on that reasoning, if one person doesn't experience god, that means there isn't a god. You would have to agree with that, it's the same reasoning you just gave, but inverse. It's childish reasoning.

I'll admit right now, there could be a god, I'll also admit there could be Unicorns. If I don't accept that unicorns exist, is my position irrational?

I'll give up atheism as soon as someone provides evidnce that a god exists and stops providing extremely childish rationalizations. I'm always open to new evidence, but personal experience is not objective evidence. And usually occurs when you're of a certain mindset.

 

[Man of Faith]

MoF armwrestles Neitzsche.

LOL, and he mad a mental breakdown... I better be careful.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

In the last half dozen years, my dad has made frequent visits to the hospital. Once, right before surgery he was scared and he felt a very peaceful feeling he never felt before that he said was from God. Another time an angel walked right through his room and put her hand on his shoulder and told him not to worry, that she wasn't there to get him. And another time during a heart attack he was outside his body looking down on my mom and sister and was worried about who would take care of them. An angel or the Lord (I don't remember) comforted him and told him there was no need to worry because God would be sure to take care of them. My Dad often kicks himself for having been somewhat of a skeptic up until the last 20 years (he's in his early 90's).

The last time I saw my paternal grandmother before she died, she talked about how her brother went out to the store for some things that morning.

Her brother was killed in World War One.

When we're under conditions of stress, our perceptions aren't always reliable.

 

[Tristesse]

Yes atheism has been around a long time and it is growing mainly because of ignorance. Did you know that the discovery that the universe had a beginning was considered a death nail to atheism? I bet you didn’t know that. Atheists pushed back hard on that, they wouldn’t accept it because it validated the theist’s position. Of course they recovered from that and adapted because a belief is just that, a belief.

Did you know that atheists used to say that there was no God? Then they found out that position is indefensible because they couldn’t prove a negative. So they went to a new position that says that “there could be a God, but I see no evidence of him or her.” Now as of July 15, 2011 that position is indefensible because of the OP.

Atheist cannot say that there is no God because they cannot prove a negative, and now as of July 15, 2011 they cannot say that there could be a God, because if there could be a God then they have to accept that people could experience him or her and they have to accept that the some claims of people experiencing God could be true.

Atheism has been around as long as the idea of a god has.

I don't understand what the universe having a beginning has to do with atheism, it's a non-sequitor. Atheism is just the lack of a belief in a deity, everything else an atheist believes is entirely up to them.

If atheist used to go around saying "there is no god" (which I highly doubt they ever did) then they would need evidence for that position too, but the term atheist simply means without belief in a god. There are a ton of other thing I don't believe in, but most of those things don't actually have a word for them.

 

[waitasec]

Think again waitasec. All minds are different. What Einstein infers from some observations not all people infer.
If two similar minds introspected/involuted their minds and held their awareness to inside of their minds for a length of time, without allowing movement of mind to externailty or to any thoughts, both minds are likey to experience the same divinity.

ok, so can you show me how that is possible.
cause you just said all minds are different.

And there is very good correspondence among mystics on this experience. The internal experiences however, unfortunately cannot be objectively shown to external viewers.

i wonder why that is...

 

[waitasec]

Yes atheism has been around a long time and it is growing mainly because of ignorance.

what do you mean, that people are not exposed to religion as much?

Did you know that the discovery that the universe had a beginning was considered a death nail to atheism? I bet you didn’t know that. Atheists pushed back hard on that, they wouldn’t accept it because it validated the theist’s position. Of course they recovered from that and adapted because a belief is just that, a belief.

it's not a death nail to me...it just reaffirms my reasons for being an atheist...no one can possibly know and any attribute given to any "creator" has thusly been refuted by what we all experience.
did you know that 99% of all the creatures that have lived are now extinct...?
what kind of "creator" would set up a system like that...

Did you know that atheists used to say that there was no God? Then they found out that position is indefensible because they couldn’t prove a negative. So they went to a new position that says that “there could be a God, but I see no evidence of him or her.”

i'm not understanding how you can say that while knowing there isn't any way one can prove there is a god
in other words, how do you justify my stance is wrong because i lack proof while yours is right while you lack proof too, your personal experience isn't proof to me

Atheist cannot say that there is no God because they cannot prove a negative, and now as of July 15, 2011 they cannot say that there could be a God, because if there could be a God then they have to accept that people could experience him or her and they have to accept that the some claims of people experiencing God could be true.

it is understood that this experience is a personal experience, not an objective empirical one.

 

[atanu]

ok, so can you show me how that is possible.
cause you just said all minds are different.

Although the unique view came to a unique person with a unique mind, it is possible to understand Einstein after he explains. Or it is possible to check his findings. Guru tradition and experience are both important.

i wonder why that is...

Can you explain the taste of apple to me?

 

[waitasec]

, it is possible to understand Einstein after he explains. Or it is possible to check his findings.

it's the difference between knowing and understanding
the thing of it is that what you know to be true to yourself you seem to apply to others which cannot be done because your experience isn't mine
i can understand to a certain extent but not fully to the extent you have experienced

Can you explain the taste of apple to me?

eating an apple is an empirical experience...
we both know what an apple is...
however each of us have 2 different tongues... subjected to the type of taste buds we have...

think of it like this,
if we all thought and understood everything the same way, there wouldn't be progress... differences of opinion or POV are good for the purpose of growth
life is about improvising and adjustments...
in the eternal words of bruce lee
be like water

 

[atanu]

eating an apple is an empirical experience...

Samadhi - involution of differentiating mind through meditation is empirical experience too.

 

[waitasec]

Samadhi - involution of differentiating mind through meditation is empirical experience too.

are you saying people can read another persons mind through meditation....?



hmmm.


can you tell me your thoughts on this:

if we all thought and understood everything the same way, there wouldn't be progress... differences of opinion or POV are good for the purpose of growth
life is about improvising and adjustments...

 

[atanu]

are you saying people can read another persons mind through meditation....?

There is no mind. There are no others.