Rehash god/proof debate

[Tiberius]

Can it not be verified for yourself?

That's what experiential evidence is.

No, I can't verify it for myself.

I may experience something that I attribute to a deity. But how do I know I wasn't hallucinating? With a sample size of one, that's impossible.

 

[Tiberius]

difference in spiritual understanding is a better word

Call it whatever you want, doesn't change the fact that it's unreliable as a way to learn about the objective nature of the real world.

 

[sun rise]

I may have missed something, but I don't see how the good professor can on the one hand say he's identifying consciousness with the ability to experience, and on the other say he's not talking about self-awareness. I

Self-awareness and consciousness are two different things. Young children are conscious but self-awareness develops later on. Some animals are self-aware.

Even more simply, I know the dead are dead and have ceased to be aware, ceased to experience.

How do you know (prove) that?

 

[Valjean]

Observing earth from space is proof.

No, its not.

 

[sun rise]

Call it whatever you want, doesn't change the fact that it's unreliable as a way to learn about the objective nature of the real world.

The material world needs material (scientific) proofs. To avoid that is to fall into the "God of the gaps" hole.

 

[Tiberius]

You are asking about what are called "veridical" NDEs

I suggest Near-Death Experiences Evidence for Their Reality as a starting point.

That's just a collection of anecdotes. Anecdotes are not evidence.

There are also papers such as https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc799169/m2/1/high_res_d/vol11-no4-223.pdf but from a careful review I would call it an unproven hypothesis but one with some evidence.

This does not describe any situation where the person was able to accurately and under controlled conditions report what was happening in a separate location. It just says that the person felt disconnected from their body. And that's nothing unusual. There are parts of your brain that are used to essentially create a connection between your consciousness and your body so that you feel like your body is actually yours. If this is disrupted (and can be done through stress, chemical imbalances, medical conditions, physical damage to the brain, etc, then this sense of connection can be altered, and you no longer feel like your body is "yours".

In short, I see no evidence to suggest that any person has had an out of body experience that has allowed them to view actual events that were happening in a different location.

 

[Tiberius]

The material world needs material (scientific) proofs. To avoid that is to fall into the "God of the gaps" hole.

The God of the Gaps is a way to claim that God exists in the bits of science where we don't have answers yet. I'm not sure how you think it applies here.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

No, I can't verify it for myself.

I may experience something that I attribute to a deity. But how do I know I wasn't hallucinating? With a sample size of one, that's impossible.

In this case, there is no deity/being or an Casper floating and telling believers what to do. How would you be hallucinating experiences, though? The whole god-idea isn't around deities and deities-that's religion. It's around experiences and practice.

Is it possible to see pass this deity view and look at it from an experiential one?

 

[F1fan]

In this case, there is no deity/being or an Casper floating and telling believers what to do. How would you be hallucinating experiences, though? The whole god-idea isn't around deities and deities-that's religion. It's around experiences and practice.

Is it possible to see pass this deity view and look at it from an experiential one?

The dilemma is that mental experiences can be conjured in the imagination. And to be effective the mind has to treat the imagined characters as if real.

 

[blü 2]

Self-awareness and consciousness are two different things. Young children are conscious but self-awareness develops later on. Some animals are self-aware.

Piaget (I think it was) concluded from some of his studies that the newborn infant is not aware / conscious of distinction between self and mother; but I'd argue that even small children are aware that when he or she is hurt, it's personal ─ a rudimentary sense of self. I'm not sure that completely rules out your point, though.

How do you know (prove) that?

It follows from the fact of ceasing to be alive ─ as Claudio (in Measure for Measure) puts it, "to lie in cold obstruction and to rot; / This sensible warm motion to become / A kneaded clod."

Which I suspect goes to the difference between my outlook and our professor's: there is a distinction between animate and inanimate, alive and dead. Even if the boundary can be ambiguous, the ends of the scale are seriously different.

I'm a materialist, at least until someone manages to persuade me otherwise, and it's plain as day to me that consciousness / awareness must arise from their material base, in our case the brain/body; and accordingly cease to exist when the material systems that maintain life irreversible fail.

(Equally, though, I see no reason in principle why in due course we can't make 'machines' that are aware / conscious.)

 

[Unveiled Artist]

The dilemma is that mental experiences can be conjured in the imagination. And to be effective the mind has to treat the imagined characters as if real.

The experiences aren't mental, that's the difference. When an experience changes your life, it changes your behavior, how you see the world, how you speak, your purpose, your relationships with self and others, and just basic sense of gratitude and optimism. It's a spiritual awakening.

When people see these experiences and such change their lives, a lot of them attribute this spiritual breakthrough with the term god. Religion and tradition helps them make sense of the experience and practice but its not a means to an end.

 

[Tiberius]

In this case, there is no deity/being or an Casper floating and telling believers what to do. How would you be hallucinating experiences, though? The whole god-idea isn't around deities and deities-that's religion. It's around experiences and practice.

Is it possible to see pass this deity view and look at it from an experiential one?

Are you actually asking me how people can hallucinate an experience? You know people have hallucinated flying, right?

 

[F1fan]

The experiences aren't mental, that's the difference.

Describe and explain a typical experience.

When an experience changes your life, it changes your behavior, how you see the world, how you speak, your purpose, your relationships with self and others, and just basic sense of gratitude and optimism. It's a spiritual awakening.

Like when a drug user has an overdoes and is hospitalized, and they realize from the experience that they need to make changes?

When people see these experiences and such change their lives, a lot of them attribute this spiritual breakthrough with the term god.

It's an easy meaning assignment when a person doesn't have a more informed understanding. You seem to know this.

But is basic maturing past previous bad decisions necessarily spiritual? Maybe it's just growing up.

Religion and tradition helps them make sense of the experience and practice but its not a means to an end.

What you seem to be referring to is what most all people learn from their social and cultural experiences. So of course they will default to that "operating software" when they have a crisis. Still, not everyone is in a crisis. Many people are happy and adjusted. Some religions, especially Christianity, can exploit it's followers and I don't see how this is advantageous.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Are you actually asking me how people can hallucinate an experience? You know people have hallucinated flying, right?

I don't see how the question relates to what I said.

In a believers case there is no deity/being (like Casper) telling them what to do.

People have profound experiences that change their lives-their relationship who they are, their purpose, and even their lifestyle. These aren't hallucinations.

The deity part is religion but the core of any spiritual beliefs is experiences and practice. That's. The evidence of god.

Is it possible to see pass this deity view and look at it from an experiential one?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Describe and explain a typical experience.

Typical? Usually spiritual awakenings aren't typical. That's why they are highlighted as profound and changes a person's life dramatically.

Whether they attribute that to a deity or not is irrelevant. The OP was focused on the evidence of god being through one's profound experiences and why non-believers can't see its an experiential point of view not a deity/casper/tooth fairy one.

 

[sun rise]

That's just a collection of anecdotes. Anecdotes are not evidence.

When compared to other types of evidence, anecdotal evidence is generally regarded as limited in value due to a number of potential weaknesses, but may be considered within the scope of scientific method as some anecdotal evidence can be both empirical and verifiable, e.g. in the use of case studies in medicine. Anecdotal evidence - Wikipedia

This does not describe any situation where the person was able to accurately and under controlled conditions report what was happening in a separate location.

How do you control someone having an NDE without potentially killing the person. And someone who is totally under stress who has an NDE has no reason to notice what is on a shelf somewhere.

The God of the Gaps is a way to claim that God exists in the bits of science where we don't have answers yet. I'm not sure how you think it applies here.

That sentence amplified the one above about the scientific method being necessary to understand the material world. If one renounces science in favor of theology, science will sooner or later eliminate the role assigned to God (in other words to partially accept science but say only God could do something is subject to science disproving that conjecture).

 

[Tiberius]

I don't see how the question relates to what I said.

In a believers case there is no deity/being (like Casper) telling them what to do.

People have profound experiences that change their lives-their relationship who they are, their purpose, and even their lifestyle. These aren't hallucinations.

The deity part is religion but the core of any spiritual beliefs is experiences and practice. That's. The evidence of god.

Is it possible to see pass this deity view and look at it from an experiential one?

I think I understand what you are saying.

But a person can experience something they think is God speaking to them (for example), and it can change their life, and yet it's just something they hallucinate. Their experience of what they believe to be God is not an objective one, and there's no way for anyone else to verify it.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I think I understand what you are saying.

But a person can experience something they think is God speaking to them (for example), and it can change their life, and yet it's just something they hallucinate. Their experience of what they believe to be God is not an objective one, and there's no way for anyone else to verify it.

I wouldn't see it as hallucination if using it to describe all deity believers. Anthropomorphizing, personifying, even using words like "love, grace, faith, and such" by making them a "person" isn't the underlying theme of evidence.

It isn't objective, no. We believe a lot of things that aren't objective in nature like the love we have for parents and the sense of "getting it." We wouldn't call these things hallucinations or imaginations just because they're not objective. When that same subjective experience (say love for ones parents) changes one's life so much they express that love for their own children it is not seen as a hallucination.

Whether they attribute this to god/deity or not is irrelevant. The evidence of their belief is in their experiences, what/who/how they attribute that experience if they do is religion (its what helps them explain these experiences and gives them context).

-

I'm not sure what a deity is and haven't talked with any theists in my life so far that believe in a deity as in the tooth fairy or casper. I do know many theist use a lot of allegory language.

Quick example comparison... if you're familiar with catholicism, catholics believe that the eucharist Is christ blood and flesh.

If you ask a catholic if they drink human blood and eat human flesh, they'd look at you funny. So, like deity, how I see it it sounds like a language barrier. Once you take away that, it's mainly people's experiences with their religion. But ask them if they believe something like the tooth fairy, they'd think that's ridiculous.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You forgot "touché".

I, like anybody else, cannot possibly have a rational conversation with someone who does not believe in knowledge. Ergo, with someone who does not believe to know what he is talking about, among other things. For instance, with someone who does not believe to know the basic laws of logic, that make any rational discussion meaningful.

Don't you think you sinked yourself into a self defeating hole that makes you, by definition, unable to defend anything you know...well, that you do not believe to know?

Ciao

- viole

Well, I notice you are not explaining what knowledge is to you. So again.

Cool. Since that is a philosophical position, I have no analytical proof to show (otherwise the matter, so to speak, would be settled).

But I can defend it using logic and the principle of parsimony.

After all, we know nature exists, while we never observed a God. And if we do not find obvious defeaters that nature is all there is, and the fact that a totally naturalistic case can easily be defended with logic, then the principle of parsimony dictates that there is no need to introduce additional actors, like Gods, that add no explanatory value . That is, they are totally superfluous.

This, of course, assumes that the principle of parsimony (aka Occam's razor) is a reliable epistemology to find truths about state of affairs.

Ciao

- viole

Again I notice you haven't backed up the bold one. Just do that.

 

[Tiberius]

When compared to other types of evidence, anecdotal evidence is generally regarded as limited in value due to a number of potential weaknesses, but may be considered within the scope of scientific method as some anecdotal evidence can be both empirical and verifiable, e.g. in the use of case studies in medicine. Anecdotal evidence - Wikipedia

What you provided were stories that were not controlled in any way. There is also pretty much nothing to indicate whether the things people claim to have seen were accurate in the cases where the people would not have been aware of them.

How do you control someone having an NDE without potentially killing the person. And someone who is totally under stress who has an NDE has no reason to notice what is on a shelf somewhere.

Actually, you don't need to produce an NDE, you just need to produce an Out of Body Experience (OBE). And this can be done quite easily. First Out-of-body Experience Induced In Laboratory Setting

That sentence amplified the one above about the scientific method being necessary to understand the material world. If one renounces science in favor of theology, science will sooner or later eliminate the role assigned to God (in other words to partially accept science but say only God could do something is subject to science disproving that conjecture).

So what exactly was your point?