Is there solid, verifiable proof that there is a god?

[TheKnight]

"You do exist, don't you?"

Do I? Perhaps I am a hallucination from something you ate or maybe that seven winged cyclops cast a spell on you.

In that same line of thinking slave2six, perhaps your computer is playing a joke on you and none of us exists. Before one requests proof of God, it should be asked whether we have proof of anything.

 

[DavyCrocket2003]

Well, slave, I don't think I have the answer you want. But it is interesting that billions of people believe in God, when I doubt even a thousand believe in elves (Tolkien Rocks BTW). So why is it then that so many people believe in Religion? Why are there forums and churches and all that about someone completely imaginary? Why is it that people will swear that God lives? Is it because they are all brainwashed? Is religion simply an artificially engineered tool of manipulation? What do you think?

 

[BucephalusBB]

Well, slave, I don't think I have the answer you want. But it is interesting that billions of people believe in God, when I doubt even a thousand believe in elves (Tolkien Rocks BTW). So why is it then that so many people believe in Religion? Why are there forums and churches and all that about someone completely imaginary? Why is it that people will swear that God lives? Is it because they are all brainwashed? Is religion simply an artificially engineered tool of manipulation? What do you think?

The past. Earth. Flat. exactly the same story..
The amount of people who believe something is true has really nothing to do with the fact if it is true or not. We tend to follow eachother no matter what..

 

[averageJOE]

Greetings my friend slave. The 'undeniable evidence' you seek is to be found within as the great founders of religions have told us:

• The kingdom of heaven is within you. (Jesus, Christianity)
• Those who know themselves know their Lord. (Mohammad, Islam)
• He is in all, and all is in Him. (Judaism)
• Those who know completely their own nature, know heaven. (Mencius, Confucianism)
• In the depths of the soul, one sees the Divine, the One. (The Chinese Book of Changes)
• Atman [individual consciousness] and Brahman [universal consciousness] are one. (Hinduism)
• Look within, you are the Buddha. (Buddhism)

Another is:
I am my own God. - Satanism

 

[Sunstone]

Forget mythology and "personal experiences" and all that rot. Can anyone on this planet provide undeniable evidence that there is a deity at all?

All evidence -- for anything -- ultimately comes down in one way or another to personal experience.

 

[Rough_ER]

All evidence -- for anything -- ultimately comes down in one way or another to personal experience.

But it becomes more than that when anyone else can go to their lab and have the same experience.

 

[Sunstone]

But it becomes more than that when anyone else can go to their lab and have the same experience.

Are all experiences intersubjectively verifiable in a laboratory? Put differently, must an experience be intersubjectively verifiable in a laboratory to be an experience?

 

[Rough_ER]

Are all experiences intersubjectively verifiable in a laboratory? Put differently, must an experience be intersubjectively verifiable in a laboratory to be an experience?

An experience is an experience. But an experience/observation published in a scientific paper, then reproduced in other laboratories with the same results is a verifiable experience. If you say "God came to me last night and said that I'm a toadstool" I can't verify that. All I was trying to express was that there is a difference between different experiences, and some can be used as evidence with more confidence than others. Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought this was the basis of scientific progress - the fact that when I publish results someone else can go away and find the same.

Perhaps you thought I was trying to make a bigger point than I actually was... I appreciate the compliment.

 

[CarlinKnew]

Mystical experiences are neurologically distinct from hallucination.

Any peer reviewed scientific works to support that claim?

Mystical-type experiences occasioned by psilocybin mediate the attribution of personal meaning and spiritual significance 14 months later

Psilocybin has been used for centuries for religious purposes; however, little is known scientifically about its long-term effects. We previously reported the effects of a double-blind study evaluating the psychological effects of a high psilocybin dose. This report presents the 14-month follow-up and examines the relationship of the follow-up results to data obtained at screening and on drug session days. Participants were 36 hallucinogen-naïve adults reporting regular participation in religious/ spiritual activities. Oral psilocybin (30 mg/70 kg) was administered on one of two or three sessions, with methylphenidate (40 mg/70 kg) administered on the other session(s). During sessions, volunteers were encouraged to close their eyes and direct their attention inward. At the 14-month follow-up, 58% and 67%, respectively, of volunteers rated the psilocybin-occasioned experience as being among the five most personally meaningful and among the five most spiritually significant experiences of their lives; 64% indicated that the experience increased well-being or life satisfaction; 58% met criteria for having had a 'complete' mystical experience. Correlation and regression analyses indicated a central role of the mystical experience assessed on the session day in the high ratings of personal meaning and spiritual significance at follow-up. Of the measures of personality, affect, quality of life and spirituality assessed across the study, only a scale measuring mystical experience showed a difference from screening. When administered under supportive conditions, psilocybin occasioned experiences similar to spontaneously occurring mystical experiences that, at 14-month follow-up, were considered by volunteers to be among the most personally meaningful and spiritually significant of their lives.

 

[Storm]

Any peer reviewed scientific works to support that claim?

Yes, the works of Dr.s Newberg and D'Aquili are peer-reviewed, including some rather harsh criticism.

 

[CarlinKnew]

Yes, the works of Dr.s Newberg and D'Aquili are peer-reviewed, including some rather harsh criticism.

Was it explicit in their work that "mystical experiences are neurologically distinct from hallucination"? If so, was this work published in a reputable scientific journal? If so, do you have a link?

I can understand that there was criticism considering I posted a link that contradicts this view.

 

[Storm]

Was it explicit in their work that "mystical experiences are neurologically distinct from hallucination"? If so, was this work published in a reputable scientific journal? If so, do you have a link?

In order: yes, as I recall, and no. The scentific journals tend to be over my head.

I can understand that there was criticism considering I posted a link that contradicts this view.

Not quite:
1) "Mystical-type experience" does not necessarily indicate a genuine mystical experience by the specific meaning of neurotheology. The drug-induced type may well be similar experientially, while totally different neurologically. Personally, I'd love to see a study comparing the neurology of the two.

2) That siad, I'm open (despite my skepticism) to the idea that entheogens might be worthy of the name, having the potential to induce genuine trance states. However, even if they are, it would still be neurologically different from mere hallucination, and that, to me, makes all the difference.

 

[BruceDLimber]

Greetings!

>Is there solid, verifiable proof that there is a God?

Of course not!

Both the existence and nonexistence of God are completely unproveable in any objective sense!

That's why religions are called "faiths."

Peace,

Bruce

 

[CarlinKnew]

In order: yes, as I recall, and no. The scentific journals tend to be over my head.


Not quite:25
1) "Mystical-type experience" does not necessarily indicate a genuine mystical experience by the specific meaning of neurotheology. The drug-induced type may well be similar experientially, while totally different neurologically. Personally, I'd love to see a study comparing the neurology of the two.

2) That siad, I'm open (despite my skepticism) to the idea that entheogens might be worthy of the name, having the potential to induce genuine trance states. However, even if they are, it would still be neurologically different from mere hallucination, and that, to me, makes all the difference.

Still waiting to see how a mystical experience is supposedly determined to be 'genuine' or not. As far as I can tell, after reading the link I posted, there is no reason to believe that there is such a distinction. In fact if this distinction hasn't been explicitly published in a reputable scientific journal, it's just another baseless claim that anyone could've pulled out of thin air.

 

[Storm]

Still waiting to see how a mystical experience is supposedly determined to be 'genuine' or not. As far as I can tell, after reading the link I posted, there is no reason to believe that there is such a distinction. In fact if this distinction hasn't been explicitly published in a reputable scientific journal, it's just another baseless claim that anyone could've pulled out of thin air.

I thought it rather obvious that by genuine, I meant "following the observed neurological pattern."

 

[CarlinKnew]

I thought it rather obvious that by genuine, I meant "following the observed neurological pattern."

Still waiting to see the evidence that a 'genuine' mystical experience follows some specific "observed neurological pattern". As far as I can tell, after reading the link I posted, there is no reason to believe that such a pattern exists. In fact if this pattern hasn't been explicitly published in a reputable scientific journal, it's just another baseless claim that anyone could've pulled out of thin air.

 

[Storm]

Are you accusing me of dishonesty, or the researchers, and on what grounds?

 

[CarlinKnew]

Are you accusing me of dishonesty, or the researchers, and on what grounds?

I'm simply remaining skeptical until I see the evidence. As far as I can tell, there is none. Until this claim is published in a reputable scientific journal, it is unaccepted by the scientific community and therefore shouldn't be taken seriously by anyone who takes science seriously.

 

[Storm]

Why are you assuming it hasn't been? Because I don't have encyclopedic knowledge of the field? That's hardly fair.

 

[Storm]

FTR, I couldn't link you to a peer-reviewed journal article for evolution, either. I don't read them, because they're over my head, so I don't know how to find them.