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

[Kilgore Trout]

"No" would have been too easy an answer, so I was more specific.

The shortest answer is a "Not at the moment."

Let me count again, but I'm pretty sure "no" is shorter than "not at the moment."

 

[Riverwolf]

Your kiding right?
Here is one:

​

Here is another:

You forgot a few:

 

[Riverwolf]

Let me count again, but I'm pretty sure "no" is shorter than "not at the moment."

But not specific enough.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

But not specific enough.

"Yes" and "no" are sufficiently specific answers to a yes/no question.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

You forgot a few:

Okay, so do you actually believe that Morgan Freeman is god?

Do you believe that the video of the electron is real?

 

[Riverwolf]

"Yes" and "no" are sufficiently specific answers to a yes/no question.

Hardly.

"No" can mean "No, there can never be any evidence because God doesn't exist."
Or "No, there can't be because God doesn't want there to be."
Or, as I have stated, "No, not at the moment."
I'm sure there are others.

 

[Riverwolf]

Okay, so do you actually believe that Morgan Freeman is god?

Do you understand a joke when you see it?

Morgan Freeman is an actor. So is John De Lance, BTW.

Do you believe that the video of the electron is real?

I saw a blue vortex in the video. But I see no reason as of yet to think the scientists weren't being honest in their claim that it is an electron.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Do you understand a joke when you see it?

Morgan Freeman is an actor. So is John De Lance, BTW.

Unfortunately, I'm often unsure whether some people on this site are joking or not, despite how ridiculous their posts are. Your response was to Mestemia's post, so I assumed that you were agreeing with his argument. Apparently, this is not the case.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Hardly.

"No" can mean "No, there can never be any evidence because God doesn't exist."
Or "No, there can't be because God doesn't want there to be."
Or, as I have stated, "No, not at the moment."
I'm sure there are others.

Or, it can simply mean "No, there is no solid, verifiable proof that there is a god," which happens to be what the question was.

 

[Riverwolf]

Or, it can simply mean "No, there is no solid, verifiable proof that there is a god," which happens to be what the question was.

But that answer doesn't say WHY.

Since that was the question, it is a waste to repeat it in the answer. (English doesn't require it, anyway.) And I also feel it is important to say WHY there is no solid, verifiable proof that there is a god. in this case, the reason why there is none is because no one has any evidence YET.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Granted, but there's quite a difference between "hearsay" and "no evidence at all."

However, to someone with no personal experience themselves, "hearsay for" and "hearsay against" could be considered to either net out to zero or to reduce the value of hearsay to zero.

My point is there's no evidence either way.

I don't follow. In any case, I think the point you raised with slave2six was a non sequitir. You said that personal experiences can be evidence. He pointed out that personal experiences can sometimes be based on nothing external. It was only then that you moved the goalposts from "personal experiences" generally to "mystical experiences".

I wasn't speaking "roughly," though, which invalidates your criticism.

I don't think it does. All I meant was that my definition might not be dictionary-perfect. The core of it, i.e. that any sensory perception not reflective of an external stimulus is a hallucination, is correct. You've said that mystical experiences are neurologically distinct from things like drug-induced hallucinations and psychotic hallucinations. Regardless, if they're not reflective of an external stimulus, then they're hallucinations. Maybe a different class of hallucinations than other types, but hallucinations nonetheless.

For example, remember those experiments where researchers induced a "God effect" with (IIRC) electrodes on the scalp? I consider this to be an example of hallucination: it was a case of sensory perception that wasn't actually reflective of a real external stimulus. Same with tests that have been done on epileptics where electrical stimulation of a certain part of the brain will produce the sensation of a certain smell. The brain was tricked, basically. Whether the brain is being "tricked" when it experiences that "God effect" without electrodes... that depends.

I'm not familiar with that one.

Texas sharpshooter fallacy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Texas Sharpshooter fires his gun wildly at the side of his barn. When he runs out of bullets, he paints a target around the best cluster of bullet holes to make it look like that's what he was aiming at.

Without looking at the studies you mentioned, here's what I worry might be happening:

- there is a large variation of experiences that fall outside what we would consider "normal" perception.
- arbitrarily, the researchers single out a group of these experiences based on some set of common characteristics and deem them to be a separate class, despite them being part of a larger continuum.
- on the basis that they're a separate class, they hypothesize that they have a separate cause from all others.

Now, I don't know that this is happening, but I would want to assure myself that it's not happening before I accepted your assessment that "mystical experiences" are some sort of distinct class of neurological phenomenon.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

But that answer doesn't say WHY.

Since that was the question, it is a waste to repeat it in the answer. (English doesn't require it, anyway.) And I also feel it is important to say WHY there is no solid, verifiable proof that there is a god. in this case, the reason why there is none is because no one has any evidence YET.

It is implied that no one has found any evidence yet, when the answer to that question is "no." Saying so offers no information about "why" there is no evidence.

 

[Riverwolf]

It is implied that no one has found any evidence yet, when the answer to that question is "no." Saying so offers no information about "why" there is no evidence.

It may IMPLY, but since I have the capability to be more specific, I wish to do so.

 

[MarvelousWorksofGod]

No, I have to say, theres no proof that you could 'put in someones face' that God is real.
The bible says his glory can't shown visually, but of course if, you are a atheist, agnostic, or
whatever, there would have to be something logic to prove it, right? But theres no such thing!
Thats why there is so many atheists/antichrist.
"You have to experience something to believe it!" but not in all cases:

[[If a well-known experienced scientist in told you that he discovered that patotoes grow underground, would you believe him? Almost everyone would believe it!]]

But if a wise person, who called himself a atheist, all of sudden discovered that God is real,
would you believe him? If your a atheist, your response most likely be a yes or a no, but why?

 

[Riverwolf]

Another is:
I am my own God. - Satanism

Hardly the same thing.

This one from Satanism can imply that "because I am God, I can do whatever I want." I do understand that Satanism, at least LeVayan Satanism, is not quite like that.

In the others, God is within us and without us, but it's not quite accurate to say that we are, therefore, God. We all make up a piece of God, but we ourselves are not all of God.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

It may IMPLY, but since I have the capability to be more specific, I wish to do so.

I guess I don't see how it's more specific, or adds any useful information.

 

[Wandered Off]

[[If a well-known experienced scientist in told you that he discovered that patotoes grow underground, would you believe him? Almost everyone would believe it!]]

But if a wise person, who called himself a atheist, all of sudden discovered that God is real,
would you believe him? If your a atheist, your response most likely be a yes or a no, but why?

There's a category difference between the first claim, which we can call an ordinary claim (potatoes are vegetables, other known vegetables grow underground) and the second, an extraordinary claim.

I would believe him in the sense that I believe God is real to him. That doesn't mean his reality and mine are the same.

 

[Storm]

I don't follow. In any case, I think the point you raised with slave2six was a non sequitir. You said that personal experiences can be evidence. He pointed out that personal experiences can sometimes be based on nothing external. It was only then that you moved the goalposts from "personal experiences" generally to "mystical experiences".

Failure to use the more precise term at one point does not constitute moving the goalposts.

I don't think it does. All I meant was that my definition might not be dictionary-perfect. The core of it, i.e. that any sensory perception not reflective of an external stimulus is a hallucination, is correct. You've said that mystical experiences are neurologically distinct from things like drug-induced hallucinations and psychotic hallucinations. Regardless, if they're not reflective of an external stimulus, then they're hallucinations. Maybe a different class of hallucinations than other types, but hallucinations nonetheless.

For example, remember those experiments where researchers induced a "God effect" with (IIRC) electrodes on the scalp? I consider this to be an example of hallucination: it was a case of sensory perception that wasn't actually reflective of a real external stimulus. Same with tests that have been done on epileptics where electrical stimulation of a certain part of the brain will produce the sensation of a certain smell. The brain was tricked, basically. Whether the brain is being "tricked" when it experiences that "God effect" without electrodes... that depends.

My point is, that experiences known to be hallucinations have a very different neurology. The assumption that mystical experiences are just a different form of the same thing is unjustified.

Texas sharpshooter fallacy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ah, I did know that one, just not the name.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_sharpshooter_fallacy

Without looking at the studies you mentioned, here's what I worry might be happening:

- there is a large variation of experiences that fall outside what we would consider "normal" perception.
- arbitrarily, the researchers single out a group of these experiences based on some set of common characteristics and deem them to be a separate class, despite them being part of a larger continuum.
- on the basis that they're a separate class, they hypothesize that they have a separate cause from all others.

To your second point, could not the same be said of the study of any experience?

Now, I don't know that this is happening, but I would want to assure myself that it's not happening before I accepted your assessment that "mystical experiences" are some sort of distinct class of neurological phenomenon.

I don't understand why the fact that the neurology is distinct is not enough to say so.

 

[Riverwolf]

No, I have to say, theres no proof that you could 'put in someones face' that God is real.
The bible says his glory can't shown visually, but of course if, you are a atheist, agnostic, or
whatever, there would have to be something logic to prove it, right? But theres no such thing!
Thats why there is so many atheists/antichrist.
"You have to experience something to believe it!" but not in all cases:

[[If a well-known experienced scientist in told you that he discovered that patotoes grow underground, would you believe him? Almost everyone would believe it!]]

But if a wise person, who called himself a atheist, all of sudden discovered that God is real,
would you believe him? If your a atheist, your response most likely be a yes or a no, but why?

Haven't you ever heard of the saying "how the mighty have fallen?"

If a well-respected scientist suddenly announced something that was pseudo-scientific, the science community would become concerned about that scientist's mental health.

He would first have to provide some verifiable proof, or at least verifiable evidence, or the rest of the scientific community would not believe him. That's the way things in science work.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

He would first have to provide some verifiable proof, or at least verifiable evidence, or the rest of the scientific community would not believe him. That's the way things in science work.

Well and succinctly put.