Looking for arguments for the existence of God

[Fluffy]

Why should that make a difference to the one having the experience?

Given that many people have experiences that are not intersubjectively verifiable and that we think are wrong, we should be as sceptical of our own experiences as we would be if another person was conveying them to us. Alternatively, we should accept another person's personal experience with the same conviction as we accept our own.

Also, if we have an experience that conflicts with intersubjectively verifiable evidence then we should not rely on our own experience.

 

[methylatedghosts]

Given that many people have experiences that are not intersubjectively verifiable and that we think are wrong, we should be as sceptical of our own experiences as we would be if another person was conveying them to us. Alternatively, we should accept another person's personal experience with the same conviction as we accept our own.

Also, if we have an experience that conflicts with intersubjectively verifiable evidence then we should not rely on our own experience.

Depending of course, on how many people verify the first bit of evidence and how strong/repetitive your own experience is no?

 

[Storm]

Given that many people have experiences that are not intersubjectively verifiable and that we think are wrong, we should be as sceptical of our own experiences as we would be if another person was conveying them to us. Alternatively, we should accept another person's personal experience with the same conviction as we accept our own.

I'm afraid I can't agree. I know what I've experienced, but your experiences are just stories.

Also, if we have an experience that conflicts with intersubjectively verifiable evidence then we should not rely on our own experience.

If we have an experience that conflicts with verifiable evidence, then we've misunderstood something.

 

[Rioku]

No, that's a non sequitur.

I'll say it again: It is not logical or rational to reject evidence just because it doesn't support a particular worldview. If it were, YEC would be valid science.

What are you talking about??? Are you saying that a persons unverifiable divine experience is evidence? If not what evidence are you referring to that I am rejecting that does not support my world view?

 

[Storm]

What are you talking about??? Are you saying that a persons unverifiable divine experience is evidence? If not what evidence are you referring to that I am rejecting that does not support my world view?

To the person that has the experience, yes.

 

[Fluffy]

I'm afraid I can't agree. I know what I've experienced, but your experiences are just stories.

And how do you know that what I have experienced is just a story? Do you have an explanation for how I have come to experience it?

 

[Storm]

And how do you know that what I have experienced is just a story? Do you have an explanation for how I have come to experience it?

I'm sorry I was unclear. Your experiences are just stories to me, just as mine are only stories to you.

 

[Rioku]

Ok, all is forgiven! Kiss and make up?



I'm going to disagree to a point. I don't think that it's necessarily logical that I'm convincing myself. I think maybe it seems so to an outside observer. But (as insane as this may actually sound) there is a reality that many people do not see and once you have experienced it, you simply know what is and what isn't. And there is no convincing of the self, there is simply knowledge.

This is exactly my point, you do not think you are convincing yourself, and that is true. This is just like the witnesses they are sure what they remember is correct when it is not. You "think" you have had a divine experience, when really you can provide no evidence for it. In the end, there are two options, either you have had a divine experience that no one can prove exists, or your mind convinced you that you had a divine experience, and science can prove that anyones mind is capable of making things up, no matter how much they believe it is true.

 

[Storm]

This is exactly my point, you do not think you are convincing yourself, and that is true. This is just like the witnesses they are sure what they remember is correct when it is not. You "think" you have had a divine experience, when really you can provide no evidence for it. In the end, there are two options, either you have had a divine experience that no one can prove exists, or your mind convinced you that you had a divine experience, and science can prove that anyones mind is capable of making things up, no matter how much they believe it is true.

Have you ever heard of neurotheology?

 

[methylatedghosts]

This is exactly my point, you do not think you are convincing yourself, and that is true. This is just like the witnesses they are sure what they remember is correct when it is not. You "think" you have had a divine experience, when really you can provide no evidence for it. In the end, there are two options, either you have had a divine experience that no one can prove exists, or your mind convinced you that you had a divine experience, and science can prove that anyones mind is capable of making things up, no matter how much they believe it is true.

One day you will understand and see exactly what I mean. Maybe not in this life - maybe in a few lives from now. But you will see

And I do understand your point, and that yes, the mind plays tricks. But trust me, some experiences are beyond mind tricks.

 

[Rioku]

To the person that has the experience, yes.

Sorry but it is not evidence if it is not observable to others. Also as stated previously personal experience is unreliable evidence, and statistically speaking you have a better chance by going against personal experience then you do going with it.

i.e. If you took a series of 100 personal experiences then went with the opposite of what they were all saying you are more likely to get what is true.

 

[Storm]

Sorry but it is not evidence if it is not observable to others.

That's your opinion, no more.

Also as stated previously personal experience is unreliable evidence, and statistically speaking you have a better chance by going against personal experience then you do going with it.

i.e. If you took a series of 100 personal experiences then went with the opposite of what they were all saying you are more likely to get what is true.

Drivel. If you actually practiced that philosophy, you wouldn't be able to leave the house.

 

[methylatedghosts]

i.e. If you took a series of 100 personal experiences then went with the opposite of what they were all saying you are more likely to get what is true.

I wouldn't bank on that!

Because a court witness is wrong doesn't mean that they are saying the opposite of the truth - that's something entirely different! I think you can still go with it

a) because it's your experience and it's your intuition that you can listen to
b) wrong =/= opposite. It can be skewed, but still has an element of truth

EDIT:

I am currently having an experience of hunger - if I was to go against that I would not eat. BUT hunger could be thirst in disguise so maybe I actually am thirsty rather than hungry. Not the direct opposite is true, but it still has an element of truth

 

[Fluffy]

I'm sorry I was unclear. Your experiences are just stories to me, just as mine are only stories to you.

But earlier on you said:

It is not logical or rational to reject evidence just because it doesn't support a particular worldview.

So my question is, on what basis do you reject my experience as "stories"?

Edit: Nevermind, you can just say that experience is only evidence to the person who is having the experience. Hmmm let me think on this

 

[Rioku]

Have you ever heard of neurotheology?

Ya it is a sudo-science, I studied neuroscience in college and and neurotheology attempts to use the same techniques to show spirituality. When evidence shows they continue to find normal brain activity.

Check out the wikipedia article on it.

 

[McBell]

Sorry but it is not evidence if it is not observable to others.

Says who?

 

[Storm]

But earlier on you said:

So my question is, on what basis do you reject my experience as "stories"?

Edit: Nevermind, you can just say that experience is only evidence to the person who is having the experience. Hmmm let me think on this

I'm not saying I reject it. I'm saying that your experience does not carry the same weight with me that my own does; nor should it. Likewise, my experiences should not carry the same weight with you as your own.

 

[Storm]

Ya it is a sudo-science, I studied neuroscience in college and and neurotheology attempts to use the same techniques to show spirituality. When evidence shows they continue to find normal brain activity.

Check out the wikipedia article on it.

Uhm, no. You don't understand what they're doing. They're mapping the neurology of mystical experience, not trying to "show spirituality." And by the way, it's pseudo, not sudo.

 

[Rioku]

I wouldn't bank on that!

Because a court witness is wrong doesn't mean that they are saying the opposite of the truth - that's something entirely different! I think you can still go with it

a) because it's your experience and it's your intuition that you can listen to
b) wrong =/= opposite. It can be skewed, but still has an element of truth

EDIT:

I am currently having an experience of hunger - if I was to go against that I would not eat. BUT hunger could be thirst in disguise so maybe I actually am thirsty rather than hungry. Not the direct opposite is true, but it still has an element of truth

Let me translate what you are saying, if 80 out of 100 people say the criminal was white, then DNA evidence finds that the person is black, those 80 people had some truth to what they were saying. It is clear you do not understand the fact that anyone can be completely convinced that their experience is true, yet verifiable evidence shows that they are wrong.

Side note: Please do not manipulate our current use of the word experience by using an instinct like hunger.

 

[methylatedghosts]

Ya it is a sudo-science, I studied neuroscience in college and and neurotheology attempts to use the same techniques to show spirituality. When evidence shows they continue to find normal brain activity.

Maybe normal brain activity involves spirituality.