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

[Riverwolf]

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

Because "no" is abstract, and can mean anything, even in the context of the question. At the same time, it doesn't say WHY.

Since we all disagree as to the "why", I feel it is important to say which "why" it is that we believe.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Because "no" is abstract, and can mean anything, even in the context of the question. At the same time, it doesn't say WHY.

Since we all disagree as to the "why", I feel it is important to say which "why" it is that we believe.

Yeah, I just don't see how answering the question "why isn't there any verifiable evidence for god's existence," with, "because nobody has found any," is a meaningful response.

 

[Riverwolf]

Yeah, I just don't see how answering the question "why isn't there any verifiable evidence for god's existence," with, "because nobody has found any," is a meaningful response.

Because there's no evidence for extraterrestrial life or wormholes.

Same reason.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

And I didn't say they necessarily were a different form of the same thing. The term "hallucination" covers a wide spectrum. It could conceivably include many different things.

Here's an analogy. The Stanley Steamer lacked a characteristic that's shared by virtually every other automobile: an internal combustion engine. However, because it had four wheels, ran on roads rather than tracks, and carried a small number of passengers, I would still call it an automobile.

When trying to decide what a vehicle is, it wouldn't be valid to say "it's steam powered, therefore it's a locomotive and not an automobile." It's the thing's other characteristics that define what it is, even though (in the days before diesel locomotives, anyhow) it would have been a good rule of thumb that steam powered vehicles were generally locomotives and internal combustion vehicles were generally cars.

Just as the type of engine doesn't define whether or not a particular vehicle is an automobile, I don't think that whether or not something is a hallucination is defined by which parts of the brain light up on an MRI when the person is experiencing it. The defining criterion is whether it's a perception that's not reflective of an actual external stimulus.

Ah, I did know that one, just not the name.


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

No - you can use statistical methods to come up with a hypothesis test to determine whether the variation you're interested in is a result of random chance or whether it indicates a real correlation.

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

You may have the advantage of me - I did say "without looking at the studies you mentioned."

 

[autonomous1one1]

.....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.

Greetings. Verifiable means at a minimum repeatable by others. That is why one particular mystic experience is proposed as evidence. It is repeatable and has been repeated many, many times and is usually described the same. This is The Mystic Experience that defines the mystic; as the author identified in my post #39 above has written, "If we mean by the term, 'mystic,' one who has experienced his identity with God,..."

This realization is being repeated often today. However, in any scientific experiment one must in general control all of the variables and this is difficult when it comes to human consciousness so the outcome is not guaranteed for The mystic experience. The final step of transformation is usually considered happening due to something outside one's control, but still, the conditions can be established to allow it to happen and it is more readily accessible today than ever before. It took me over two years of intense focus but the author wrote that it took him a few months.

Another is:
I am my own God. - Satanism

Greetings Joe. It appears that you are new to RF - welcome. Your comment was puzzling in that as Riverwolf noted it is in no way comparable to the statements of Jesus, Mencius, Buddha, Krishna, Mohammad, etc. Perhaps your suggestion stems from a somewhat common misunderstanding of the mystic that has gotten a few mystics executed in the past. You see, the statement 'I am my own God' is ego oriented, defining one's own ego as God and bringing God into it and into the finite. The mystic has something quite different in that the ego has been transcended and statements come from egoless. The mystic experience is not grandizement of the ego although it is sometimes interpreted as such.

Best Wishes,
a..1

 

[McBell]

So are you of the opinion that that video of an electron is not real?

Additionally, are you of the opinion that the pictures you posted are not real?

If you're answers are not the same, then the reason they are not shows why your response is faulty.

The point that you seem to have totally missed is merely presenting a picture/video of what you claim does not equate to proof.

Based upon that logic, my post just "proved" that unicorns, fairies, werewolves, vampires, and sasquatch all exist.

So my response is no more faulty than the post I replied to.

He asked for a picture of god, I presented him with more than one.

I then presented pictures of other things he, by his presented argument, now needs to believe as well.

 

[AlsoAnima]

I'm going to pretend this question was.

Is there absolute evidence that can be observed through a repeatable scientific test?
No, there is not.

 

[autonomous1one1]

I'm going to pretend this question was.

Is there absolute evidence that can be observed through a repeatable scientific test?
No, there is not.

Greetings Also. That surely seems reasonable from a scientist perspective but permit one to make two points that raise question about its applicability as a limit here. When you write 'scientific test' you are referring to an objective reality (outside yourself) that can be isolated, experimented upon, and observed without disturbance. THE mystic experience is above the subject-object structure. We all agreed to that last year in one of Sunstone's threads. It cannot be brought into the subject-object scheme of duality; the experience is the realization of nondual reality. Another point to take into account is that most of what you know is experiential - not from scientific test. THE mystic experience is a direct realization and the knowledge gained thereby is experiential in nature.

Regards,
a.1

 

[AlsoAnima]

Greetings Also. That surely seems reasonable from a scientist perspective but permit one to make two points that raise question about its applicability as a limit here. When you write 'scientific test' you are referring to an objective reality (outside yourself) that can be isolated, experimented upon, and observed without disturbance. THE mystic experience is above the subject-object structure. We all agreed to that last year in one of Sunstone's threads. It cannot be brought into the subject-object scheme of duality; the experience is the realization of nondual reality. Another point to take into account is that most of what you know is experiential - not from scientific test. THE mystic experience is a direct realization and the knowledge gained thereby is experiential in nature.

Regards,
a.1

Nice to meet you a.1, I prefer Anima.
In so far as you have stated, I agree. However, I feel that the question at hand was if the spiritual world could be tested in a similair way to the material world, which it cannot. It was that that I was expressing in my thought. I do not believe there is no proof of the metaphysical, but I do believe that you cannot reach it through empirical data. A tragedy in my eyes.

 

[autonomous1one1]

Nice to meet you a.1, I prefer Anima.
In so far as you have stated, I agree. However, I feel that the question at hand was if the spiritual world could be tested in a similair way to the material world, which it cannot. It was that that I was expressing in my thought. I do not believe there is no proof of the metaphysical, but I do believe that you cannot reach it through empirical data. A tragedy in my eyes.

It seems we agree, Anima. Incidentally, 'Also' was preferred because it had such potential to be used ambiguously with fun but will bow to your preference.:angel2:

 

[OmarKhayyam]

On the "personal experience" issue I found this.

Just FYI for those interested.

 

[Jeremiah]

And I didn't say they necessarily were a different form of the same thing. The term "hallucination" covers a wide spectrum. It could conceivably include many different things.

Here's an analogy. The Stanley Steamer lacked a characteristic that's shared by virtually every other automobile: an internal combustion engine. However, because it had four wheels, ran on roads rather than tracks, and carried a small number of passengers, I would still call it an automobile.

When trying to decide what a vehicle is, it wouldn't be valid to say "it's steam powered, therefore it's a locomotive and not an automobile." It's the thing's other characteristics that define what it is, even though (in the days before diesel locomotives, anyhow) it would have been a good rule of thumb that steam powered vehicles were generally locomotives and internal combustion vehicles were generally cars.

Just as the type of engine doesn't define whether or not a particular vehicle is an automobile, I don't think that whether or not something is a hallucination is defined by which parts of the brain light up on an MRI when the person is experiencing it. The defining criterion is whether it's a perception that's not reflective of an actual external stimulus.


No - you can use statistical methods to come up with a hypothesis test to determine whether the variation you're interested in is a result of random chance or whether it indicates a real correlation.


You may have the advantage of me - I did say "without looking at the studies you mentioned."

"And I didn't say they necessarily were a different form of the same thing. The term "hallucination" covers a wide spectrum. It could conceivably include many different things."

I agree, language can be very crude. However, I felt it was clear enough that Storm was talking about a specific type of hallucination.

 

[Jeremiah]

Kinda. One person's personal experience is another person's hearsay. I think it's valid to place low value on hearsay.


Even if that's true, it doesn't mean that mystical experiences are any more based on something external than hallucination.

Edit: also, I should point out that you're begging the question in your description. Roughly speaking, hallucination is the term for any sensory perception that's not based on external stimuli. Its meaning isn't limited to false sensory perceptions that follow some set neurological pattern. If mystical experiences aren't based on external stimuli, then they're hallucinations; if they follow some neurological pattern that's distinct from other hallucinations, then we'd have two distinct categories of hallucinations. When you describe mystical experiences as not hallucinations, you imply certain factual or value claims that you haven't supported yet, IMO.


Depending on how they structured their studies, one worry of mine would be that they engaged some form of the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy.

Edit: and it's not so much a matter of honesty as of rigor in their methods.

"Even if that's true, it doesn't mean that mystical experiences are any more based on something external than hallucination.

Edit: also, I should point out that you're begging the question in your description. Roughly speaking, hallucination is the term for any sensory perception that's not based on external stimuli. Its meaning isn't limited to false sensory perceptions that follow some set neurological pattern. If mystical experiences aren't based on external stimuli, then they're hallucinations; if they follow some neurological pattern that's distinct from other hallucinations, then we'd have two distinct categories of hallucinations. When you describe mystical experiences as not hallucinations, you imply certain factual or value claims that you haven't supported yet, IMO."

And must it always be tied to "sensory perception"? If I told you that I experienced God or felt God is that still a "hallucination"? I feel it must run deeper then just simple sensory perception to produce the conviction it has.

I mean you tell me. If you saw God and only saw, would you then believe?

 

[logician]

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

No, religion is based upon faith.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

The point that you seem to have totally missed is merely presenting a picture/video of what you claim does not equate to proof.

Based upon that logic, my post just "proved" that unicorns, fairies, werewolves, vampires, and sasquatch all exist.

So my response is no more faulty than the post I replied to.

He asked for a picture of god, I presented him with more than one.

I then presented pictures of other things he, by his presented argument, now needs to believe as well.

The point that you seem to have totally missed, is that the existence of the electron is not only believable because of the video, but because of the verifiable and repeatable process by which they captured the image of the electron (apart from all the other non-image verifiable and repeatable processes which prove its existence).

 

[Riverwolf]

The point that you seem to have totally missed, is that the existence of the electron is not only believable because of the video, but because of the verifiable and repeatable process by which they captured the image of the electron (apart from all the other non-image verifiable and repeatable processes which prove its existence).

And how can we be absolutely sure they went through with all that? Especially since the picture was not of what I expected an electron to look like, but like a blue vortex. I was expecting a bright dot or something.

Don't get me wrong. I see no reason why the scientists would lie about it; there'd be no gain in that. I'll believe the story. But I will remain somewhat skeptical, as always, just in case.

 

[Katzpur]

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

Just curious... How does a "personal experience" qualify as "rot"? Are you telling us you've never had a personal experience that was meaningful to you but which you were not able to recreate scientifically for someone else's benefit? If that's what you're saying, you are unique in all the world.

 

[slave2six]

Just curious... How does a "personal experience" qualify as "rot"? Are you telling us you've never had a personal experience that was meaningful to you but which you were not able to recreate scientifically for someone else's benefit? If that's what you're saying, you are unique in all the world.

I have dreamt many things, none of which were real. I have never had a conscious "meaningful experience" that could not be recreated, no. Emotions are worthless as evidence, particularly when it is scientifically proven that emotions can be and often are manipulated.

I call it "rot" because experience that cannot be duplicated or authenticated by other human beings is of no value in verifying the existence of a person, place or thing, only to an idea. But ideas are not "reality" in the same way that person, places, and things are.

If God is real and he created the physical universe or in any way interacts with the physical universe then it is quite reasonable for those of us who are physical beings and who understand "reality" through the five sense to insist that any deity that wants to be worshiped or acknowledged make the effort to interact with each of us in terms that we understand as "real" and undeniable. In this forum, for example, you and I can exchange ideas and so there is some sense of reality between us. That is to say, we both exist. That is merely the starting point. I could portray myself as a young black female or an old white female but unless you meet me face to face the only thing you can say for certain about me is that I have the ability to exchange ideas with you.

There is no such starting point for any god. Therefore, is it rational to presume that god exists? Not to a rational, substitious person, no.

 

[Riverwolf]

There is no such starting point for any god. Therefore, is it rational to presume that god exists? Not to a rational, substitious person, no.

I disagree, and I think it's insulting to say that people who believe in God (however they choose to define it) are irrational, as many are quite intelligent.

Besides, the arguments you've provided are dependent on the argument that God is an anthropomorphic, external being, separate from everything else. That may be okay when using God as a poetic character, but in reality, however you define it, "God" is... the opening lines from "I Am the Walrus." (I'm dead serious.)

 

[McBell]

The point that you seem to have totally missed, is that the existence of the electron is not only believable because of the video, but because of the verifiable and repeatable process by which they captured the image of the electron (apart from all the other non-image verifiable and repeatable processes which prove its existence).

All that was asked for is a pic, I presented two pics.
Perhaps if you weren't trying so so hard to look smart, you would have caught that.