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

[JMorris]

I'm somewhere between pantheism and panentheism, so I don't believe there's a separate God to "meet." However, I do believe that between lives, we regain awareness of the whole. Without a brain to maintain the illusion of separation, we shift back to the divine perpective.

sounds far more plausible than meeting a man on a cloud.

 

[blackout]

it can go both ways. i have what might be considered a spiritual experience, and i go to a psychologist, where as another might go to a church. who is right? im not saying being religious is a mental illness, im just saying an "experience" can be perceived differently to different people.

in my opinion, if there were a universal god, then we'd all experience him/her/it. not just a select few.

Bingo.
And even every 'commonplace' experience can be... and is...
percieved differently to different people.

And we "name" our own "stuff".

It "matters" to me only in the capacity that if I do not claim my god status,
I will most certainly never REALize it.

People each have their own reasons why it does or doesn't matter to them.
Like everything else.

 

[MarvelousWorksofGod]

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.

An experience is not always a emotional one.
An experience can mean things happening to you that can include anything,
which that would be do to emotional, mental, physical, or absolutely anything.

You said:

" 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. "

Please tell me why it can't duplicated.? Why it has no value? If YOU have not experienced something that someone claimed they did, your the one who doesn't have any varification to anything. But if you come around somewhere and find that someone else said they experienced something, than you have two people who can varify that something is real. But I have way more than just two people that can prove you wrong.

I have used a example thats similar, but if there were 20 scientist that confirmend that astroids are made of granite, you would just believe it because you are not a scientist and you know that you have no way varifying something. But if a whole community of people who weren't necessarily believers that were seeking after Him came to you and said that "I was speaking in tongues and I couldn't stop saying Jesus," but then you wouldn't want to believe it.
And would if I told you right now that non-believers have fallen out speaking tongues (and I assume you know what that is) because the Lord have came to them, would you believe it? Would if I told you, that? Oh, no! But you don't have any proof. But if you seek after something, you can get your proof.

Is the physical and mental world the only thing you believe in?
There is much more to life than just what we can see, sense or think.
We have the spiritual and emotional world also. Varification does not consist just science. Are you telling me that the world was put together randomly? Is it?
Well if thats the case, should I just die, because I have no reason to be here?
I am my own God? I don't think so. I think you need to rethink your thoughts.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Please tell me why it can't duplicated.? Why it has no value? If YOU have not experienced something that someone claimed they did, your the one who doesn't have any varification to anything. But if you come around somewhere and find that someone else said they experienced something, than you have two people who can varify that something is real. But I have way more than just two people that can prove you wrong.

It is still hearsay, just because a majority believe does not make it so.

I have used a example thats similar, but if there were 20 scientist that confirmend that astroids are made of granite, you would just believe it because you are not a scientist and you know that you have no way varifying something.

However, the scientists have the ability to show verifiable evidence that what they claim is so. I can choose to believe them blindly, or I can examine the evidence. This is not something that is available from a personal "revelation".

But if a whole community of people who weren't necessarily believers that were seeking after Him came to you and said that "I was speaking in tongues and I couldn't stop saying Jesus," but then you wouldn't want to believe it.
And would if I told you right now that non-believers have fallen out speaking tongues (and I assume you know what that is) because the Lord have came to them, would you believe it? Would if I told you, that? Oh, no! But you don't have any proof. But if you seek after something, you can get your proof.

Can you show empirical evidence that what you claim is true? It is the responsibility of those making extraordinary claims to provide the evidence. Not for the hearer of the claims to seek out said evidence.

Is the physical and mental world the only thing you believe in?

What one believes, and what one can provide evidence for are two separate matters.

There is much more to life than just what we can see, sense or think.

Thus the necessity of constant research to learn all that we can about our natural universe. Through scientific method.

We have the spiritual and emotional world also. Varification does not consist just science. Are you telling me that the world was put together randomly? Is it?

Not randomly, following natural law.

Well if thats the case, should I just die, because I have no reason to be here?

That is a very fatalistic view. Why must you "need" a reason? Why is life not a reason to exist in and of itself?

I am my own God? I don't think so. I think you need to rethink your thoughts.

Why must you assume that "you are your own god" if the Abrahamic god does not exist? Or if no god exists? Or if your perception of god is in error?
Speaking of "rethinking your thoughts".

 

[Apion]

To me... the UniVerse IS gOd.
(and thus are you)

Why not just call the Universe the Universe?

Here's what you are essentially saying:

The Universe is God.
I am God.
Therefore, I am the Universe.

But...how can you "be" something and "experience" it at the same time? Who is experiencing the Universe? The Universe is both the observer and the observed? Can a hammer hit itself? The law of identity comes into play here. That sentence is logically incorrect.

 

[Anti-thesisofreason]

its one thing to claim that your god is a personal god. but you start claiming that your god is a universal god, the god of all people, then thats where clashes of "personal experience" come in. of course an atheist's personal experience is going to clash with this.

i dont know how many times i've heard from christian saying "if you just let jesus into your heart, and blah blah blah". and before people starting fuming over generalizations, how many times do i need to hear this from christians before i can start generalizing?

my point is, when its my personal experience that there is no universal god, and your claiming there is, and all i have to do is "let him in my heart" then your claiming that somehow my experience is flawed. i havent "tried" hard enough or some crap.

at the same time, i realize that the same is true of an atheist experience to a christian experience.

there is no way these 2 types of experience cant be in conflict. but it goes both ways.

Perhaps you are experiencing god but you're not looking at those experiences in the right way and thus you interpret them as not being god.

 

[Anti-thesisofreason]

it can go both ways. i have what might be considered a spiritual experience, and i go to a psychologist, where as another might go to a church. who is right? im not saying being religious is a mental illness, im just saying an "experience" can be perceived differently to different people.

in my opinion, if there were a universal god, then we'd all experience him/her/it. not just a select few.

But experiencing god is in the way one interprets the experience so you can't say that god is only experienced by a select few if in deed god is universal.

You choose to interpret a certain experience one way or another, no one else does.

 

[Anti-thesisofreason]

Why not just call the Universe the Universe?

Here's what you are essentially saying:

The Universe is God.
I am God.
Therefore, I am the Universe.

But...how can you "be" something and "experience" it at the same time? Who is experiencing the Universe? The Universe is both the observer and the observed? Can a hammer hit itself? The law of identity comes into play here. That sentence is logically incorrect.

Practicing mindfulness is being and experiencing at the same time.

 

[Apion]

Practicing mindfulness is being and experiencing at the same time.

Dualism isn't a popular position today but experience consists of an interaction of observer and the observed, a duality that is irreducible. Experience ceases to exist of either one is not there. What you are experiencing during mindfulness isn't "you," the observer.

 

[JMorris]

Perhaps you are experiencing god but you're not looking at those experiences in the right way and thus you interpret them as not being god.

the same can be said in reverse. you cant test a spiritual experience. so theres no way to know if it was a "hallucination" or not.

for example, one night i experienced sleep paralysis. and what i experienced was quite scary and disturbing. what i experienced could of easily been perceived as some sort of spiritual experience. but my prior knowledge of sleep paralysis told me that was what it was, not anything spiritual.

if personal experience is all it takes to validate a person's chosen religion, then the same can be said of atheism. and there is no way these too experiences cant come into conflict when the religion includes a universal god.

 

[Riverwolf]

Why not just call the Universe the Universe?

Here's what you are essentially saying:

The Universe is God.
I am God.
Therefore, I am the Universe.

But...how can you "be" something and "experience" it at the same time? Who is experiencing the Universe? The Universe is both the observer and the observed? Can a hammer hit itself? The law of identity comes into play here. That sentence is logically incorrect.

I never heard of identity as a law; I've always regarded it as illusion.

 

[Apion]

I never heard of identity as a law; I've always regarded it as illusion.

Although you hold that belief, you respect the identity of objects daily (or else you would be dead, or in the mental asylum) without the need to consciously acknowledge it. A rock is a rock, it isn't an airplane that will eventually sprout roots and grow into an elephant. It very well could be an illusion, but it is a useful illusion or the world would be nonsensical and meaningless.

 

[Riverwolf]

Although you hold that belief, you respect the identity of objects daily (or else you would be dead, or in the mental asylum) without the need to consciously acknowledge it.

Indeed, I am still limited to the illusion, and am not ready to conquer it just yet. (And I doubt I ever will be in this life at the rate I'm going.) Yet I still acknowledge the illusion, and am trying to recognize the Atman, which is within all things, including myself.

A rock is a rock, it isn't an airplane that will eventually sprout roots and grow into an elephant.

This is true. But the base component that makes the rock, airplane, and elephant, is the same: Stardust. (I'm not sure the technical makeup of Stardust, but I believe one of the elements is either Hydrogen or Helium, but I'm not too sure which one.)

It very well could be an illusion, but it is a useful illusion or the world would be nonsensical and meaningless.

Would it be? How would it be nonsensical and meaningless to see things as they ARE, rather than as they APPEAR to our limited senses?

And let me correct this:

The Universe is God.
I am God.
Therefore, I am the Universe.

It should read as:

The Universe is God.
I am part of the Universe.
Therefore I am part of God.

 

[rojse]

To me... the UniVerse IS gOd.
(and thus are you)

Not sure how much more UniVersal you can get than that.
(plus I'll bet you believe they both exist :flirt

UltraViolet, what is up with gOd? Any particular reason, or is it merely to be contrary?

 

[McBell]

Since you were originally responding to my post, I know exactly what I meant, and what I said. To post a painting of god, in reponse to my posting a video of an electron, as an apt comparison of proof of existence is at best shallow, and at worst disingenuous. The only reason I even pursue this is that I know you are capable of being intellectually honest, and usually are.

A video was presented to "prove" the existence of one of the --trons.
then a picture of of god was asked for.
Two pictures of god were presented.

To drive the point home a few other relevant pictures were presented.
So using the same logic AS PRESENTED (but NOT properly explained), that post just "proved" that fairies, werewolves, vampires, sasquatch, and unicorns exist.
How?
Because pictures of them have been presented.

Now instead of going down this particular boo hoo road, how about you properly present your argument?

 

[Willamena]

It very well could be an illusion, but it is a useful illusion or the world would be nonsensical and meaningless.

Would it be? How would it be nonsensical and meaningless to see things as they ARE, rather than as they APPEAR to our limited senses?

Because formlessness is chaos. (Appearance is form.)

 

[blackout]

UltraViolet, what is up with gOd? Any particular reason, or is it merely to be contrary?

grande Open design

 

[Riverwolf]

Because formlessness is chaos. (Appearance is form.)

So far as we can tell.

 

[Jeremiah]

Mystical experiences are nothing but deceptions of the mind

Anyone who does not entertain that idea is only proving it right.

 

[Sunstone]

Mystical experiences are nothing but deceptions of the mind

Anyone who does not entertain that idea is only proving it right.

Nonsense.