Love Evidence of God?

[Jeremiahcp]

That's one of the stupidest things I've ever read.

Did you read your own post?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

"No, that would be begging the question, not evidence."

I did consider that possibility before posting, and I disagree. It would be an experience phenomena, which is exactly how we prove much of what we believe in life.

"I experienced some phenomenon" - not begging the question

"I experienced some phenomenon that I'm taking to be 'the love of God'" - jumping to a conclusion.

"I'm going to take my experience of 'the love of God' as evidence for God" - begging the question.

"Often, the best judge of these steps is someone other than the person who had the experience."

I am not really sure how you reached this conclusion, but it is simply not true.

Who's a better judge of whether a person is experiencing a hallucination: a potentially hallucinating person or his psychiatrist?

Who's a better judge of common mistakes in perception: an expert in human cognition or some random person who thinks he saw something interesting?

Listening to others is important but each individual should be the judge on what they believe, especially when it concern an experience others can't share in.

Listening is important in both directions. As Richard Feynman said, "the first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you're the easiest person to fool."

Like I said, the only part of the process that's only accessible to one person is the initial perception. Anybody can do the reasoning to attribute the perception to a cause; the experiencer has no special qualification in that regard.

When we start by taking the person's experience as a given - what he actually experienced, not necessarily the explanation he has built around it - and reason about what conclusions we can infer from it, in no case I've ever heard of do we get to the conclusion that a god exists.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Sure, I've had a feeling of fear or danger about a certain place or person. However feelings aren't reliable. I've had to overcome my fears in order to objectively evaluate a place. I've had to overcome my feeling of danger to get over my bigotry of other folks.

I'm not against feelings. I'll go see an emotional movie for feelings. However I'm not going to go about punching some socialist or communist in the face because some movie got me feeling all emotional and patriotic. Your feelings are the easiest why to manipulate you. I suppose that is part of the reason belief in God is so popular. Folks allow themselves to be manipulated by their feelings.

Without facts, I don't think we are capable of making the best decisions. Relying on feelings is a crap shoot. You may get lucky and make the right decision but I think you're relying mostly on chance then.

In some things feelings are reliable and they are needed for making the best decision, for example moral decision or examining the worth of life. Reason alone can't tell you the difference between right and wrong, it needs the help of emotions. Deep understanding life and the world around cannot be achieve with just reason, it requires the application of both reason and emotion.

At any rate, no one is making the claim that feelings are always reliable, and that certainly should be part of the consideration; however, that does not mean a conclusion can't be reached by that individual and it does not mean they should be omitted in a consideration. Especially since, in this case, we are directly talking about an experience of love, AKA an emotion.

"Without facts, I don't think we are capable of making the best decisions."

That is just nonsense. The best decision is the best decision that can be made, even without facts you can still make the "best" decision that can be made. I am not sure how old you are, but in life you very often will need to make your best decision without all the facts.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

"I experienced some phenomenon" - not begging the question

"I experienced some phenomenon that I'm taking to be 'the love of God'" - jumping to a conclusion.

"I'm going to take my experience of 'the love of God' as evidence for God" - begging the question.


Who's a better judge of whether a person is experiencing a hallucination: a potentially hallucinating person or his psychiatrist?

Who's a better judge of common mistakes in perception: an expert in human cognition or some random person who thinks he saw something interesting?


Listening is important in both directions. As Richard Feynman said, "the first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you're the easiest person to fool."

Like I said, the only part of the process that's only accessible to one person is the initial perception. Anybody can do the reasoning to attribute the perception to a cause; the experiencer has no special qualification in that regard.

When we start by taking the person's experience as a given - what he actually experienced, not necessarily the explanation he has built around it - and reason about what conclusions we can infer from it, in no case I've ever heard of do we get to the conclusion that a god exists.

"I experienced some phenomenon that I'm taking to be 'the love of God'" - jumping to a conclusion.

"I'm going to take my experience of 'the love of God' as evidence for God" - begging the question."

Or I believe this love is evidence of God, not begging the question but making an assessment of an experienced phenomenon. I did consider the exact thing you are suggesting, but we actually do the same thing in science, we perceive sometime then we make a hypothesis based on that perception. The difference here is that in science we can then test that hypothesis. The person who experienced the love will need to draw a conclusion without the benefit of a scientific assessment.

"Who's a better judge of whether a person is experiencing a hallucination: a potentially hallucinating person or his psychiatrist?"

We are talking about sane people here with full use of their reason. I am not sure how familiar you are with schizophrenic delusions, but that is a major difference.

"Like I said, the only part of the process that's only accessible to one person is the initial perception. Anybody can do the reasoning to attribute the perception to a cause; the experiencer has no special qualification in that regard."

The experiencer has access to the data, which puts them in a unique position . For example in statistics I could suggest an approach to analyze data that someone told me about, but I can't do the actual analysis without the data itself.

"When we start by taking the person's experience as a given - what he actually experienced, not necessarily the explanation he has built around it - and reason about what conclusions we can infer from it, in no case I've ever heard of do we get to the conclusion that a god exists."

We can't get a conclusion, by remember in the OP I said, "to that individual".

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

"I experienced some phenomenon that I'm taking to be 'the love of God'" - jumping to a conclusion.

"I'm going to take my experience of 'the love of God' as evidence for God" - begging the question."

Or I believe this love is evidence of God, not begging the question but making an assessment of an experienced phenomenon.

That's not how you phrased it in the OP. Your original formulation begged the question:

"If a person feels God's love is that evidence to that individual that God is real?"

Referring to "God's love" in the premise assumes that God exists.

And depending on what you mean by "this love", your rephrasing may still be begging the question (if "this love" refers to God's love for the person). Either that or it just doesn't make sense (if "this love" refers to the person's love for God).

I did consider the exact thing you are suggesting, but we actually do the same thing in science, we perceive sometime then we make a hypothesis based on that perception. The difference here is that in science we can then test that hypothesis. The person who experienced the love will need to draw a conclusion without the benefit of a scientific assessment.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here.

"Who's a better judge of whether a person is experiencing a hallucination: a potentially hallucinating person or his psychiatrist?"

We are talking about sane people here with full use of their reason. I am not sure how familiar you are with schizophrenic delusions, but that is a major difference.

I notice you left out the second part of what I wrote, where I touched on cognitive biases.

Everyone has flaws in their thinking. Everyone's perception is imperfect. When we perceive experiences, our brains use heuristics that give us advantages, but are only pretty accurate most of the time, even in peope who are perfectly sane.

... though I don't share your assumption that this hypothetical person we're talking about is necessarily sane. We should consider all possible explanations. If we're trying to explain why someone would tell us that they "feel God's love", if "maybe it really was God" makes the short list, then other explanations should too, like:

- maybe it's a product of mental illness
- maybe they aren't mentally ill, but it's the product of a normal cognitive bias
- maybe they're lying
- maybe they've been conditioned to consider some mundane, explainable experience as "God's love"

Again: I don't see why some random person who says they experienced something interesting is the best person to evaluate all of these possibilities.

"Like I said, the only part of the process that's only accessible to one person is the initial perception. Anybody can do the reasoning to attribute the perception to a cause; the experiencer has no special qualification in that regard."

The experiencer has access to the data, which puts them in a unique position . For example in statistics I could suggest an approach to analyze data that someone told me about, but I can't do the actual analysis without the data itself.

If someone gives you a few statistical measures from their data (mean, standard deviation, etc.) you can still make inferences from this that can support or refute the person's claims.

If someone tells you about their experience but nether you nor the other person can give a reasonable answer to the question "how do you know it was God and not something else?", neither of you are justified in concluding that it must have been God.

"When we start by taking the person's experience as a given - what he actually experienced, not necessarily the explanation he has built around it - and reason about what conclusions we can infer from it, in no case I've ever heard of do we get to the conclusion that a god exists."

We can't get a conclusion, by remember in the OP I said, "to that individual".

If the person's conclusion is justified, anyone should be able to go through the reasoning from the premise (the experience) to the conclusion (the existence of God).

The only part that relies on that individual is the initial experience. Anyone should be able to agree "if he's describing his experience accurately, God must exist"; the only part that's up to the individual is "he's describing the experience accurately."

 

[Polymath257]

How does experiencing an emotion, however powerful, provide evidence of a supernatural?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

That is not really an equivalent comparison, as there is a difference between the two, which is partly what this thread is about. The toast is an object and everyone can share in that experience and access it on the same level. The toast can be scientifically analyze by established standards. The feeling of love experienced; however, is individualized, the experience cannot be shared on the same level by everyone and it cannot be measured scientifically.

That's irrelevant. The point is that any subjective interpretation or experience can be evidence of anything, for anyone. Of course, evidence isn't all created equal nor should it all be weighed the same.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

That's not how you phrased it in the OP. Your original formulation begged the question:

"If a person feels God's love is that evidence to that individual that God is real?"

Referring to "God's love" in the premise assumes that God exists.

And depending on what you mean by "this love", your rephrasing may still be begging the question (if "this love" refers to God's love for the person). Either that or it just doesn't make sense (if "this love" refers to the person's love for God).



I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here.


I notice you left out the second part of what I wrote, where I touched on cognitive biases.

Everyone has flaws in their thinking. Everyone's perception is imperfect. When we perceive experiences, our brains use heuristics that give us advantages, but are only pretty accurate most of the time, even in peope who are perfectly sane.

... though I don't share your assumption that this hypothetical person we're talking about is necessarily sane. We should consider all possible explanations. If we're trying to explain why someone would tell us that they "feel God's love", if "maybe it really was God" makes the short list, then other explanations should too, like:

- maybe it's a product of mental illness
- maybe they aren't mentally ill, but it's the product of a normal cognitive bias
- maybe they're lying
- maybe they've been conditioned to consider some mundane, explainable experience as "God's love"

Again: I don't see why some random person who says they experienced something interesting is the best person to evaluate all of these possibilities.


If someone gives you a few statistical measures from their data (mean, standard deviation, etc.) you can still make inferences from this that can support or refute the person's claims.

If someone tells you about their experience but nether you nor the other person can give a reasonable answer to the question "how do you know it was God and not something else?", neither of you are justified in concluding that it must have been God.


If the person's conclusion is justified, anyone should be able to go through the reasoning from the premise (the experience) to the conclusion (the existence of God).

The only part that relies on that individual is the initial experience. Anyone should be able to agree "if he's describing his experience accurately, God must exist"; the only part that's up to the individual is "he's describing the experience accurately."

"Referring to "God's love" in the premise assumes that God exists."

I disagree, as I think you are not looking below the skin of the semantics, but maybe the OP could have been worded better, but then 99.99% of all the post on these forums could have been worded better. I do my best, you'll just have to live with it.

"I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here."

I am not sure how to make it clearer, it is an experienced phenomenon that can be assessed, maybe not by scientific standards, but it can be assessed. And then a conclusion can be drawn from that assessment.

"I notice you left out the second part of what I wrote, where I touched on cognitive biases."

Not for any specific reason. I didn't address it because you statement showed a deep misunderstanding of how delusions work and I didn't feel like getting into that line of discussion.

"Everyone has flaws in their "

That includes any so-called expert and while their input should perhaps be given more weight the final assessment still comes down to the individual. A psychologist cannot tell you if should believe in God or not; or if what you experienced was evidence of God. I mean by your suggestion, then perhaps the person in question should seek out an expert in God, at a church and listen to what they have to say instead.



"- maybe it's a product of mental illness
- maybe they aren't mentally ill, but it's the product of a normal cognitive bias
- maybe they're lying
- maybe they've been conditioned to consider some mundane, explainable experience as "God's love""

Maybe it is not the product of mental illness.
Maybe it is not normal cognitive bias.
Maybe they are telling the truth.
Maybe they have not be so conditioned.

I mean if you are just going to enumerate possibilities then you allow for their opposite possibility as well. I have never found that be a very convincing tactic whether employed by theist or atheist.

"Again: I don't see why some random person who says they experienced something interesting is the best person to evaluate all of these possibilities. "

Your beliefs cannot be evaluated without you, and your insight. I think you are trying to deny the importance personal assessment in forming your own beliefs, which just nonsensical. Expert and outside input is important, yes, but so is thinking for yourself.


"If someone gives you a few statistical measures from their data (mean, standard deviation, etc.) you can still make inferences from this that can support or refute the person's claims."

You are talking about statistics directly calculated from the data, so how do you purpose the person who experienced the love draw such quantitative measurement? This is the barrier I have been talking about, on an individual level there is no way to objectively measure this, if there was we would not be having this discussion. If love experienced by a person could be objectively measured then it would be subject to scientific standards.

"If someone tells you about their experience but nether you nor the other person can give a reasonable answer to the question "how do you know it was God and not something else?", neither of you are justified in concluding that it must have been God."

I never said anything at all about "must have", that is close to being a straw-man argument.

Also it is not your place to tell others they are not justified in concluding it was God. You are Canadian right? You do believe in religious freedom, correct? If a person wants to walk outside and claim a tree is proof of God they are perfectly justified in do that. So how about we stop pretending we get to decided what people are justified in believing.


"The only part that relies on that individual is the initial experience. Anyone should be able to agree "if he's describing his experience accurately, God must exist"; the only part that's up to the individual is "he's describing the experience accurately.""

That is not true at all, it will definitely be up to that individual to decide what it means. There is nothing you believe to be true that other people disagree with? I mean get real, people draw different conclusions from the same evidence all the time, even your experts. Your argument does not even make sense. If it was as simple as you suggest all the disagreement in the world would be solved. I mean just consider us here, we both have access to same amount of evidence but yet we can't agree. Also you can drop the "must" part here as well, I never suggested it was a "must" be God.

At any rate I have stuff and things to do, thanks for the back and forth I'll prob. check back later. Unless I lose interest in the conversation then I'll just move on. I know some of these can turn into endless debating so some times I just stop.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That is not really an equivalent comparison, as there is a difference between the two, which is partly what this thread is about. The toast is an object and everyone can share in that experience and access it on the same level. The toast can be scientifically analyze by established standards. The feeling of love experienced; however, is individualized, the experience cannot be shared on the same level by everyone and it cannot be measured scientifically.

The perception of Jesus on toast is individualized as well. Everyone has a different level of predisposition to pareidolia. We can also be primed for pareidolia by our expectations or suggestions from others.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Since it is an individual experience it would be up to the individual to decide if it was God's love they experienced or not. I am not sure how any outsider could address that issue, since they would have no access to the experience, and it not something that can be measured scientifically.

That wouldnt make sense. All people have access to the experience. If it is part of life and real its possible to experience it. However, many outsiders dont contribute their experiences to god. Without a god, doesnt mean one doesnt have the experience just means they have no physical source (if they felt they needed one) to desribe it.

I mean, if I didnt attribute how I feel on a beautiful day, does hat mean Im an outsider tonthe experience?

Likewise with jesus. Though no one has yet explained how their experiences are different than mind without recerring to Their attributed source.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I disagree, as I think you are not looking below the skin of the semantics, but maybe the OP could have been worded better, but then 99.99% of all the post on these forums could have been worded better. I do my best, you'll just have to live with it.

If what you type doesn't reflect what you mean, it's really not my problem. I'm not a mind-reader; I can only go by what you actually say.

I am not sure how to make it clearer, it is an experienced phenomenon that can be assessed, maybe not by scientific standards, but it can be assessed. And then a conclusion can be drawn from that assessment.

The question is whether it can be assessed well enough to get to a rational conclusion.

Not for any specific reason. I didn't address it because you statement showed a deep misunderstanding of how delusions work and I didn't feel like getting into that line of discussion.

My main point is that the human mind is not perfectly reliable. Do you disagree?

That includes any so-called expert and while their input should perhaps be given more weight the final assessment still comes down to the individual.

The justification isn't in the authority of the expert; the justification is in what they use as the basis for their decisions.

A psychologist cannot tell you if should believe in God or not; or if what you experienced was evidence of God.

But a psychologist can tell you about all the ways that our perceptions can be wrong, and about all the ways that our brains can misinterpret reality.

I mean by your suggestion, then perhaps the person in question should seek out an expert in God, at a church and listen to what they have to say instead.

What makes anyone at a church an "expert in God"?

Maybe it is not the product of mental illness.
Maybe it is not normal cognitive bias.
Maybe they are telling the truth.
Maybe they have not be so conditioned.

I mean if you are just going to enumerate possibilities then you allow for their opposite possibility as well. I have never found that be a very convincing tactic whether employed by theist or atheist.

Of course. And until we narrow it down, we have to say that we don't know the cause.

Your beliefs cannot be evaluated without you, and your insight. I think you are trying to deny the importance personal assessment in forming your own beliefs, which just nonsensical. Expert and outside input is important, yes, but so is thinking for yourself.

So the mentally ill should diagnose themselves?

You are talking about statistics directly calculated from the data, so how do you purpose the person who experienced the love draw such quantitative measurement? This is the barrier I have been talking about, on an individual level there is no way to objectively measure this, if there was we would not be having this discussion. If love experienced by a person could be objectively measured then it would be subject to scientific standards.

Dude - it was your analogy, remember?

I never said anything at all about "must have", that is close to being a straw-man argument.

If we're talking about inferences from experiences, then "it was God" is equivalent to "it must have been God" and "therefore God exists" is equivalent to "therefore God must exist."

You don't need to do any work at all to conclude that God may or may not exist, and may or may not be the cause for something.

Also it is not your place to tell others they are not justified in concluding it was God. You are Canadian right?

Anyone who can reason is qualified to point out mistakes in reasoning.

You do believe in religious freedom, correct? If a person wants to walk outside and claim a tree is proof of God they are perfectly justified in do that. So how about we stop pretending we get to decided what people are justified in believing.

I think you're assuming a different sense of "justify" than I'm intending. I can think that someone's religious beliefs are irrational nonsense while still believing that the government shouldn't hassle him just for believing them.

That is not true at all, it will definitely be up to that individual to decide what it means. There is nothing you believe to be true that other people disagree with? I mean get real, people draw different conclusions from the same evidence all the time, even your experts. Your argument does not even make sense. If it was as simple as you suggest all the disagreement in the world would be solved. I mean just consider us here, we both have access to same amount of evidence but yet we can't agree.

That suggests that at least one of us has made a mistake in reasoning, or that the facts at hand are compatible with more than one answer. Which do you think is going on?

Also you can drop the "must" part here as well, I never suggested it was a "must" be God.

What are you suggesting, then?

"God exists" implies "God must exist." Again, I can only go by what you actually say.

At any rate I have stuff and things to do, thanks for the back and forth I'll prob. check back later. Unless I lose interest in the conversation then I'll just move on. I know some of these can turn into endless debating so some times I just stop.

This is an internet forum. You're always free to leave the discussion.

I'll often ask myself "what's my reason for replying to this post?" If I can't come up with one, I just don't reply.

 

[Nakosis]

In some things feelings are reliable and they are needed for making the best decision, for example moral decision or examining the worth of life. Reason alone can't tell you the difference between right and wrong, it needs the help of emotions. Deep understanding life and the world around cannot be achieve with just reason, it requires the application of both reason and emotion.

Well they can help to maybe make the best decision for you personally because of feelings. You want to be happy so you make decisions you think will make you happy. Doesn't always work out that way because of a lack of knowledge.

At any rate, no one is making the claim that feelings are always reliable, and that certainly should be part of the consideration; however, that does not mean a conclusion can't be reached by that individual and it does not mean they should be omitted in a consideration. Especially since, in this case, we are directly talking about an experience of love, AKA an emotion.

I know several people who's life has been total messed up because of decisions made based on "love".

That is just nonsense. The best decision is the best decision that can be made, even without facts you can still make the "best" decision that can be made. I am not sure how old you are, but in life you very often will need to make your best decision without all the facts.

I've made a lot of decisions that I thought were the best to be made at the time. Yes, I didn't have all the information at the time. Sometimes I've made choices because I didn't have enough information, however assuming the results that choice would itself provide information. I've never thought though that having less information would lead to better choices.

You feel feelings can be trusted to guide your decisions. You're not alone in this. Myself, I've known too many people, too many situations were relying on feelings have gotten folks into trouble.

 

[Alison Wonderland]

If a person feels God's love is that evidence to that individual that God is real?

No, it's not "evidence," it's "intuition" or some other form of subjective experience.

Thread over.

 

[arthra]

If a person feels God's love is that evidence to that individual that God is real?

Love is an attractive force and as humans we require a nurturing from birth in order to establish trust in later life... there were some studies I recall which focused on the importance of nurturing to begin to build trust and social networking later in life. Without that nurturing there would be likelihood of psychosis developing...

Baha'u'llah has further indicated..

O God, my God! Leave me not to myself, for the extreme of adversity hath come upon me. Out of the pure milk, drawn from the breasts of Thy loving-kindness, give me to drink, for my thirst hath utterly consumed me. Beneath the shadow of the wings of Thy mercy shelter me...

(Baha'u'llah, Prayers and Meditations by Baha'u'llah, p. 234)

and in The Persian Hidden Words we read:

29. O SON OF BOUNTY!

Out of the wastes of nothingness, with the clay of My command I made thee to appear, and have ordained for thy training every atom in existence and the essence of all created things. Thus, ere thou didst issue from thy mother's womb, I destined for thee two founts of gleaming milk, eyes to watch over thee, and hearts to love thee. Out of My loving-kindness, 'neath the shade of My mercy I nurtured thee, and guarded thee by the essence of My grace and favor.

(Baha'u'llah, The Persian Hidden Words)

For Baha'is the love of God sustains us and we in our turn return that love as we are able... this further occasions the love we have for others. So there is love of God for His creation... and love of humanity for God...and love of man for man.

 

[viole]

If a person feels God's love is that evidence to that individual that God is real?

Nope. At best, it would provide evidence (to her) of the existence of a loving god.

Ciao

- viole