Looking for arguments for the existence of God

[methylatedghosts]

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.

Then you take me for a fool or you think I am stupid. I do understand what you are saying and I said before that I know the mind plays tricks.

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

Weren't we talking about experience? Is hunger not an experience?

 

[McBell]

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

HUH?
Please explain what you mean with this, because I experience hunger all the time.
At least twice a day.

 

[Rioku]

it's pseudo, not sudo.

Thank you for the correction

Uhm, no. You don't understand what they're doing. They're mapping the neurology of mystical experience, not trying to "show spirituality."

The original intention of the science was to show different brain activity when having a mystical experience. Hence they were trying to show the existence of spiritual state. When all they ended up finding was normal brain activity. Not to mention Neuroscience knows so little about the brain it is amazing. Any research that attempts to use Neuroscience techniques to support another form of research is about 5 decades too early.

 

[Storm]

Thank you for the correction

NP

The original intention of the science was to show different brain activity when having a mystical experience. Hence they were trying to show the existence of spiritual state. When all they ended up finding was normal brain activity.

Define "normal brain activity."

 

[methylatedghosts]

Any research that attempts to use Neuroscience techniques to support another form of research is about 5 decades too early.

I think you underestimate the neuroscience field. I think we're very close to some huge steps forward.

 

[Rioku]

HUH?
Please explain what you mean with this, because I experience hunger all the time.
At least twice a day.

I hate getting into the specifics of semantics of words in a context like this so please let us no dwell on this.

We have been using the word "experience" in a context of an event that happen in the past that can or can not be proven by outside evidence.

In his use of the experiencing hunger, he twisted our use of the word, in that his experience of hunger is an event that can be verified in itself. Where as if he refer to hunger in the past, you can not measure hunger in the past. However you can measure what time he paid for a meal, then use that evidence to assume he was hungry.

In the end the use of the semantics of the word is insignificant. What matters is how it was used in a separate context relative to what we were talking about, in an attempt to prove something incorrect. It was more of a manipulation rather then a useful argument towards the topic.

 

[Rioku]

Define "normal brain activity."

Example: If I were placed into an electroencephalogram (EEG) and thought about having an experience with god talking to me. And someone else was placed into the EEG who believed God was talking to them the brain activity would be the same.

i.e. there is no evidence to show brain activity that represents a state of mystical experience.

 

[Rioku]

I think you underestimate the neuroscience field. I think we're very close to some huge steps forward.

They are making huge steps but not in the way many people think they are. We are far from any industrial use for neuroscience. For example: we will not be playing video games with just our brain any time soon. Although there are games already, it is not what you think. The machine is trained to respond not to what you think but electrical activity in the brain. So it does not read your thoughts of moving your character forward it more or less knows what the electrical activity in your brain looks like when you think move forward. Also each person has to train the machine to his or her brain. So if you train it to move forward on the though of Pizza, then the move forward command would be every time you think of pizza, and if you thought move forward nothing would register.

But yes they are making advances.

 

[McBell]

I hate getting into the specifics of semantics of words in a context like this so please let us no dwell on this.

We have been using the word "experience" in a context of an event that happen in the past that can or can not be proven by outside evidence.

In his use of the experiencing hunger, he twisted our use of the word, in that his experience of hunger is an event that can be verified in itself. Where as if he refer to hunger in the past, you can not measure hunger in the past. However you can measure what time he paid for a meal, then use that evidence to assume he was hungry.

In the end the use of the semantics of the word is insignificant. What matters is how it was used in a separate context relative to what we were talking about, in an attempt to prove something incorrect. It was more of a manipulation rather then a useful argument towards the topic.

Seems to me that you are now talking in circles.
Is it not the assumption that God exists that you arguing?
Yet you accept that the purchase of a meal is valid evidence to make an ASSUMPTION of the personal experience of hunger?

Oh, and you missed this:

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

Says Who?
​

 

[Storm]

Example: If I were placed into an electroencephalogram (EEG) and thought about having an experience with god talking to me. And someone else was placed into the EEG who believed God was talking to them the brain activity would be the same.

i.e. there is no evidence to show brain activity that represents a state of mystical experience.

Actually, there is. I lack the acumen (and memory) to describe it in detail, but one of the hallmarks is altered functioning of an area of the occipital parietal lobe which regulates awareness of one's body's spatial boundaries and orientation. If you're interested in more information, I highly recommend Why God Won't Go Away: Brain Science and the Biology of Belief, by Dr.s Newberg and D'Aquili.

Anyway, we're getting off topic. My point was that the mystical experience can be - and has been - verified as neurologically real.

 

[Mister_T]

People are going to believe what they want to believe. If people want evidence for a higher being, they'll find it. If people want evidence that disproves a higher being or anything supernatural, they'll find that too. That's what threads like these really end up proving.

 

[YmirGF]

Hi

I am looking for rational intellectual arguments for the existence of God, and why a particular religion is true. Why I am looking for this? Because so far I haven't found any, and I want to seek out arguments that opposes my present intellectual conclusion.

Hiya Rorschach, it isn't often that I run into someone as direct as myself here on RF, so I appreciate your frankness. No doubt my answers will tick off the holy rollers, but I can't say I am terribly concerned about ruffling people's feathers.

So..

How do you know your religion is right concerning what it states to be true about the universe?

Well, be honest, you already know the answer. The simple truth is that people simply believe their religion is the "right way" and they are merely expressing their opinion that they think reality is coddled in the clothing of their religious framework. Fortunately, that does not change reality an iota, save in the experience of said believer. For some odd quirk of human psychology people also feel that having a billion people agree with their religious outlook MAKES that outlook correct. The simple fact is -- it does not. I call it the Lemming syndrome.

On what ground did you come to the conclusion that your religious explanation was the most plausible one as opposed to other religions' explanations or atheism?

By and large you should receive the answers "revelation" and "faith". For those in the first camp, they have have a deep religious experience that put them firmly on their path which is supported by their faith. For those who have had no such "revelations" it's all about faith. Keep clicking your heels... eventually you will be back in Kansas. Honest!!! (If you believe... that is.)


Now to thoroughly rattle your cage, I subscribe to no religion of man and look down on those primitive religions with more than a measure of disdain. I have had extraordinary experiences in consciousness that have gone on for over thirty years and I (hopefully) see no end in sight. I like to pretend that my view of reality is just that -- reality. I don't often use terms like "god" unless chatting to theists otherwise they may never figure out what I am babbling about. If I say "god" then at least they have a requisite reference point and we can dialogue from there, lol.

It is my direct experience that "god" may well be what I describe as a "psychological energy gestalt" that is perhaps more the building blocks of reality (well below the sub-atomic level) that binds all realities like "glue", rather than being some old dork with "god" pinned to his lapel who just by chance looks like you or me.

I am also on record as saying that "god" is an experience and you experience this aspect of reality whether you are aware of it or not, although it is much more pleasant being aware of it, I utterly assure you.

I have also had the great pleasure of spending time with an aspect of "god" called Vishnu by our dear Hindu friends, although I now understand the reasons for the precipitation of that experience and have moved well beyond the need for that kind of symbolism. It was pretty awesome, nonetheless.

On what ground did you come to the conclusion that your religious explanation was the most plausible one as opposed to other religions' explanations or atheism?

I am far too clever to say that my way is the right way or the "true" path as those sentiments have little meaning to me. I would never suggest that my way is better than any other and that is the greatest clue for others to consider. I am also not looking for followers, lol and find the idea absurd to say the least. I am far more interested in empowering others to discover their own inner reality and then just maybe, they can come back and tell me what they have discovered. In my distorted view of reality, reality trumps illusion at every turn, but the sad reality is that most people are far too comfortable in their illusions and are not ready to take the plunge into themselves. They must sense that when you are fully yourself, you have no one else to blame and ultimately you are the master of your own reality. I do understand how that can be a bit daunting.

There is no one to bow down to. There is no one to fear. There is nothing to hide from and there is no limit on experience. In my insane view of reality, we perpetually exist in an open system. There is no death, but there are distinct transitions and their is more joy and love than most people dare to believe.

Oh well... I could be wrong. Just exactly would this old fool know?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Hiya Rorschach, it isn't often that I run into someone as direct as myself here on RF

Getting that chopped liver feeling... :slap:

 

[Rioku]

Seems to me that you are now talking in circles.
Is it not the assumption that God exists that you arguing?

Umm I am arguing that it is more logical that a self claimed divine experience is more logically a false memory then reality. But that has moved a little as the debate continues.

Yet you accept that the purchase of a meal is valid evidence to make an ASSUMPTION of the personal experience of hunger?

I am not quite sure what you mean by this so correct me if my response is not what you want. What I was trying to make clear is the difference between the use of experience and how the word was manipulated. So the example of purchasing food is a different use of the word that goes to help demonstrate how it was manipulated. The example itself is insignificant.

Oh, and you missed this:

Says Who?
​

I actually chose not to answer that, for the reason that if you think something like a person hearing the voice of god ( which is not observable) is a form of evidence then there is no way I will be explain to you how evidence needs to be observable.

Here is the wikipedia definition:
Evidence in its broadest sense, includes anything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion.

Key word in that is demonstrate: which by nature means it has to be observable.

More Specifically here is the scientific definition, considering this is what we are talking about:

In scientific research evidence is accumulated through observations of phenomena that occur in the natural world, or which are created as experiments in a laboratory.

 

[McBell]

Umm I am arguing that it is more logical that a self claimed divine experience is more logically a false memory then reality. But that has moved a little as the debate continues.

I understand now.
And yes it seems it has shifted.

I am not quite sure what you mean by this so correct me if my response is not what you want. What I was trying to make clear is the difference between the use of experience and how the word was manipulated. So the example of purchasing food is a different use of the word that goes to help demonstrate how it was manipulated. The example itself is insignificant.

Seems you will needs to drop it a few more notches, because I still do not follow.
However, you did state that you do not wish to dwell on this and I shall respect your wish, if fo r no other reason than to keep the thread on topic.

I actually chose not to answer that, for the reason that if you think something like a person hearing the voice of god ( which is not observable) is a form of evidence then there is no way I will be explain to you how evidence needs to be observable.

Even in your definition below it does not state that it must be demonstrated to others.
However, i will concede that if one wants others to accept it as evidence, then they would likely need to demonstrate it.

In scientific research evidence is accumulated through observations of phenomena that occur in the natural world, or which are created as experiments in a laboratory.

Are you saying that you want scientific evidence for something that science tends to avoid?

 

[Rioku]

Are you saying that you want scientific evidence for something that science tends to avoid?

The sentence on scientific evidence was another definition of evidence that I found on wikipedia.

And I think you have a misconception of me, I am am atheist, there is a link to my blog in my signature. A couple of you statements make me think that you thought otherwise.

 

[McBell]

The sentence on scientific evidence was another definition of evidence that I found on wikipedia.

And I think you have a misconception of me, I am am atheist, there is a link to my blog in my signature. A couple of you statements make me think that you thought otherwise.

I know and knew from the first post (I followed the link), but I have to honestly say that I have no idea what comments of mine would have you thinking that I thought you to be theist.

Oh.
And you did not answer the question.

 

[Rioku]

Oh.
And you did not answer the question.

A little confused on what the question is?

 

[McBell]

A little confused on what the question is?

Are you saying that you want scientific evidence for something that science tends to avoid?

 

[Rioku]

Are you saying that you want scientific evidence for something that science tends to avoid?

That is what you said last post, which is what I was confused about... so what is it that you think science tends to avoid?