Let's Present Some Evidence ...

[nonbeliever_92]

Greetings Willamena. Although atotalstranger and PureX make interesting points, from my perspective on the type of awareness you are addressing in post #526 the Internet is definitely creating a boom right now. Those who are guiding us in the spirituality area have noted the vast expansions in interest and how they themselves are able to reach greatly expanded audiences throughout the world. For the first time in history one has a tremendous reservoir of information, techniques, and guides available at fingertip. Me thinks the boom from the Internet will show up in history but of course at this point it is a guess based upon the trend within only a few years of experience.

Post 526 is not evidence.

 

[autonomous1one1]

Thank you for your comments themadhair and Willamena. There was the fear of winning the debate without ever required to make a second post due to lack of interest or something.

Having talked to many people claiming such experiences there seems to be considerable overlap in what they describe – and the only real difference I’ve yet seen has been what they claim as the cause or source for those experiences. I can accept the contention that experiences can differ greatly, but I think it is a stretch to claim that different experiences can be rendered different on the basis of attributed source. The conformational bias alone should be enough to raise doubts.

Perhaps the open mind should raise questions because of the points you make here about a variety of experiences, themadhair, but my offering in this thread of potential evidence is meant really to address only one specific experience as in post #526.

How? Replace the word ‘god’ with ‘allah’ and I’m pretty sure it would be an accurate description of the experiences of some Muslims. I have met Scientologists who have described experiences not dissimilar to yours (they call it a ‘cognition&#8217.

If a Hindu, Buddhist, <insert and religious follower here>, etc. had the same experience as you wouldn&#8217;t they attribute it to their own particular theology? And if so doesn&#8217;t this raise a serious question mark over your claim that such is evidence for your particular god?....

They already have. One could argue that they started the whole shebang.

The claim, though, is "evidence for god".

In my view, Willemena is quite right, themadhair. You raise the question what if those of different religions have this 'mystic experience,' and they have as Willamena notes. That is one of the significant points towards considering this one specific experience as evidence for not only have there been experiences within each religion but the experiences have been characterized and conceptualized essentially the same, and each of the major religions has a specific term for this specific experience (post #526). The similarities attributed to this experience are unifying across religions and throughout time. That is why Abhayananda titled his book "History of Mysticism: The Unchanging Testament."

 

[autonomous1one1]

Post 526 is not evidence.

Greetings nonbeliever. Your comment is appreciated but it, of course, gives me little evidence to address that Post 526 is not evidence. You have given the testimony of one person which may be important however, but that is not convincing and that is why the testimony of many are reported for 'The Mystic Experience.'

 

[ManTimeForgot]

"And I contend that caring only about truth value and not about the person is a gross violation of morality."

????

I have NO idea what is supposed to mean.
Perhaps you could provide a real life example.

There are several examples where speaking honestly and forthcomingly result in damage. That's far too easy. The quintessential "nazis come knocking at your door looking for your best friend..." is enough example of that.

But for this thread specifically: not everyone is prepared to accept truth. Its the reason why very young children that believe in the easter bunny or santa clause are not told right away that they do not exist. There is no reason to excise (hard, fast, complete removal) the belief, and every reason to let the young child either figure out on their own or slowly plant seeds of doubt. In adults it is a little more complex, but the principle remains the same. Not everyone is prepared, capable, or willing to accept certain truths.

Case in point: Satan exists (as a proposition; no I actually don't believe this). Some people are not ready to face their "inner demons;" they aren't ready to deal with the skeletons in their closet directly. So having an external source of "evil" allows some people to cope. Psychotherapy of the sort required to deal with trauma takes a lot of time, and therapists do not immediately bypass their patients delusions, repressions, and/or projections.


This is why it is better to deal with the "false" believer (one who does not actually believe what they profess) by gently leading them away from a lie and allow them (in the mean time) to find something which resonates with them. A "true" believer (someone who actually believes what they profess) will pretty much never be lead away, and the "false" believer is given the time needed to "keep themselves together" as opposed to having their ideological landscape sterilized and left in disarray without anyone around looking to help them put things back together.

MTF

 

[saltandlight]

There are several threads on which people have been arguing about the "evidence" or lack thereof of the existence of "God". These threads were not started with this subject in mind, so I'm starting a new thread to keep them from being sidetracked.

Keep in mind that evidence is not proof. For example, the fact that Bob could have left work unnoticed and killed his wife, and then returned to work, resulting in his fellow workers claiming that he was on the job all day is not proof that Bob killed his wife. It is evidence, however, in that it provides a reasonable possibility.

Also, let's keep this a polite and civil discussion/debate. Your posts will be ignored, otherwise.

I will begin the discussion with a few posts from these other threads:


Sure ...

1. The idea of God works for most people most of the time. Ideas that work for us on a regular basis tend to be taken as accurate.

2. The ordered nature of existence forces us to consider the reality of a "God". Existence is not random. How do we explain this? What is responsible for the order? And why? The answers to these questions are a mystery, and we have named this mystery "God".

3. Energy can express itself as consciousness (take ourselves as an example), again, forcing us to consider that a consciousness could in turn express itself as energy (in much the same way as matter and energy are interchangeable). If so, all of existence could well be the "mind of God, expressed", just as the ancients claimed.

1. With this ideology, anything can be "god". Which is not the case.
2. Life is not random, true. But only a powerful creator (God) can do such a thing. And no, He is not a mystery, He has revealed Himself to us through His Son, Jesus Christ.
3.Can Energy be personal like God is? I don't think so. We can't actually fathom what God looks like, so we give him human expressions (anthropromorphisms) to allow us to know God. He is expressed to us through the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
3 in 1, 1 in 3. The Trinity.

 

[Commoner]

There are several examples where speaking honestly and forthcomingly result in damage. That's far too easy. The quintessential "nazis come knocking at your door looking for your best friend..." is enough example of that.

But for this thread specifically: not everyone is prepared to accept truth. Its the reason why very young children that believe in the easter bunny or santa clause are not told right away that they do not exist. There is no reason to excise (hard, fast, complete removal) the belief, and every reason to let the young child either figure out on their own or slowly plant seeds of doubt. In adults it is a little more complex, but the principle remains the same. Not everyone is prepared, capable, or willing to accept certain truths.

Case in point: Satan exists (as a proposition; no I actually don't believe this). Some people are not ready to face their "inner demons;" they aren't ready to deal with the skeletons in their closet directly. So having an external source of "evil" allows some people to cope. Psychotherapy of the sort required to deal with trauma takes a lot of time, and therapists do not immediately bypass their patients delusions, repressions, and/or projections.


This is why it is better to deal with the "false" believer (one who does not actually believe what they profess) by gently leading them away from a lie and allow them (in the mean time) to find something which resonates with them. A "true" believer (someone who actually believes what they profess) will pretty much never be lead away, and the "false" believer is given the time needed to "keep themselves together" as opposed to having their ideological landscape sterilized and left in disarray without anyone around looking to help them put things back together.

MTF

I think, generally, and in the case of religion specifically, the benifits of knowing the truth far outweigh the flimsy comfort ignorance provides.

Your nazi example doesn't really address this issue in my opinion. Yes, if there are nazis at the door, lie your *** off. But don't tell the people hiding in the basement that it was the postman telling you that the war is over - that might provide a bit of relief temporarily, but will almost certainly have grave consequences.

You have to draw the line somewhere and I think that in the case of religion - children being indoctrinated is where that line is. This is not a matter of omitting all or part of the facts, to protect someone from imminent harm.

There certainly are cases where certain individuals should be "protected" from the truth, but that doesn't mean that truth is overrated. It just means being truthful is sometimes not the best strategy.

And I certainly think that preventing children from having these ideas forced on them far outweighs giving some adults a bit of a harsh reality check.

 

[Commoner]

2. Life is not random, true. But only a powerful creator (God) can do such a thing.

Illogical atheist: Then I guess god must be random.

Logical theist: oh, wait, no - god didn't need to be created.

Illogical atheist: but then why did the universe have to be created?

Logical theist: because it isn't random and because it's soooo complex, it must have been created.

Illogical atheist: Oh, that answers it! Thanks! Wait...*


* at this point the atheist, illogical as he is, returns to his first point.

 

[themadhair]

In my view, Willemena is quite right, themadhair.

How so? You are neglecting the people that have similar experiences (and very similar at that) who not only don’t conclude your god, but don’t conclude any god. How does it sit with you that Scientologists have described experiences like yours to me? Doesn’t the fact that different people attribute their experiences only to ideologies they already accepted, were exposed to or were raised in not cast serious doubt over this as being evidence for those ideologies? Are you aware of what conformational bias is?

And I should point out that if you intend on using a vague concept of ‘god’ here then you run the risk of that concept being too vague and ephemeral to be the cause of your experiences. See my signature too.

 

[nonbeliever_92]

Greetings nonbeliever. Your comment is appreciated but it, of course, gives me little evidence that Post 526 is not evidence to address. You have given the testimony of one person, however, but that is not convincing and that is why the testimony of many are reported for 'The Mystic Experience.'

Purely subjective experiences cannot be held as viable evidence for anything. The "evidence" of post 526 is anecdotal at best.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

Purely subjective experiences cannot be held as viable evidence for anything. The "evidence" of post 526 is anecdotal at best.

It is just UPG and has meaning ONLY to those claiming the experience. As such it has NO value as evidence of anything other than that people have claimed such experiences. To allow otherwise makes every séance every vision every voice of god ever reported fact.

It raises Harvey to to the level of a real rabbit. Complete with hat.:bow:

 

[Willamena]

How so? You are neglecting the people that have similar experiences (and very similar at that) who not only don’t conclude your god, but don’t conclude any god.

Actually, I could count myself one of those; and yet, I cannot discount the 'experience' as evidence of "God". It certainly gave me a better understanding of what "God" means to others (where before I had no understanding).

How does it sit with you that Scientologists have described experiences like yours to me? Doesn’t the fact that different people attribute their experiences only to ideologies they already accepted, were exposed to or were raised in not cast serious doubt over this as being evidence for those ideologies? Are you aware of what conformational bias is?

Confirmation bias is a tendency to interpret an experience using a particular set of symbols. When I had an 'experience' I also interpreted it with a particular set of symbols unique to me, that also produced an image inspired by my understanding. It's to be expected that not only each person who follows a particular ideology, but each individual person would interpret the 'experience' using a unique set of symbols --individual bias. Even so, within those sets of symbols is a message that is unmistakably representative of a similar 'experience'.

Leonard Cohen:

The light came through the window
Straight from the sun above,
And so inside my little room
There plunged the rays of love

In streams of light I clearly saw
The dust you seldom see
Out of which the Nameless makes
A name for one like me

All busy in the sunlight
The flecks did float and dance,
And I was tumbled up with them
In formless circumstance

Then I came back from where I'd been
My room, it looked the same
But there was nothing left between
The Nameless and the name

And I should point out that if you intend on using a vague concept of ‘god’ here then you run the risk of that concept being too vague and ephemeral to be the cause of your experiences. See my signature too.

It's not so very vague if many (in the know) from various religions, and even from no religion, can recognize it.

 

[PureX]

It is just UPG and has meaning ONLY to those claiming the experience. As such it has NO value as evidence of anything other than that people have claimed such experiences. To allow otherwise makes every séance every vision every voice of god ever reported fact.

It raises Harvey to to the level of a real rabbit. Complete with hat.:bow:

I'm glad to finally meet the decider of all universal truths. I've been wondering where you were. But your bias is showing a little, here.

If we have no OTHER evidence but subjective experience, then we would be fools to dismiss subjective evidence simply because it's subjective (which seems to be what you're proposing). And in fact there are a lot of concepts the truthfulness of which rests only on subjective personal experience (love, beauty, justice, etc.) and you aren't going to be able to sell their inauthenticity by claiming they're subjective personal experiences. Being the decider of all universal truth isn't as easy as it looks.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

... there are a lot of concepts the truthfulness of which rests only on subjective personal experience (love, beauty, justice, etc.) and you aren't going to be able to sell their inauthenticity by claiming they're subjective personal experiences.

In what way are 'love, beauty, justice, etc." concepts of truthfulness?

 

[Just_me_Mike]

In what way are 'love, beauty, justice, etc." concepts of truthfulness?

Seeing that truthfullness is just as subjective as love, beauty, and justice they are only concepts if an individual's source for "truthfulness" teaches those words are part of truth.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Seeing that truthfullness is just as subjective as love, beauty, and justice they are only concepts if an individual's source for "truthfulness" teaches those words are part of truth.

Perhaps PureX is fully capable of answering for himself.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

Perhaps, but my answer is a good one.

 

[PureX]

In what way are 'love, beauty, justice, etc." concepts of truthfulness?

You need to rephrase this question. I don't know what you're asking.

The implication I saw in the other post was that because the evidence for the reality of "God" is purely subjective, it shouldn't count as evidence. My objection was that the evidence for a lot of things is purely subjective, like love, beauty, and justice. Yet no one is going to accept the idea that these are not "real" just because the evidence of them is purely subjective.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

You need to rephrase this question. I don't know what you're asking.

The implication I saw in the other post was that because the evidence for the reality of "God" is purely subjective, it shouldn't count as evidence. My objection was that the evidence for a lot of things is purely subjective, like love, beauty, and justice. Yet no one is going to accept the idea that these are not "real" just because the evidence of them is purely subjective.

I don't think anybody has problem accepting that god is a real, subjective concept, just like the other things you mentioned.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

The funny thing about the God in the bible, is the purposeful mysteriousness of it all. Evidence? Yeah right!
If there was a contest for the question asked the most times in the history of our world it might be just that one. Ain't gonna happen.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

Side note:
There is a difference between confusing and mysterious.