There is no evidence for God, so why do you believe?

[RestlessSoul]

So the reasons for your belief in God:

- the phrase "I know your heart" once popped into your head, apparently unprompted.
- while in an altered state (through no fault of your own, of course), you heard a voice.

That's it? Really?

Epiphanies are generally experiential. And experience is visceral, unlike pure reasoning, which is cognitive. What our experience teaches us is every bit as valid, sometimes more so, than what logic and reason reveal to us.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Epiphanies are generally experiential. And experience is visceral, unlike pure reasoning, which is cognitive. What our experience teaches us is every bit as valid, sometimes more so, than what logic and reason reveal to us.

Oh, I've experienced feelings like that. It can certainly feel overwhelming. (Edit: by the same token, though, carbon monoxide poisoning is also "visceral" and "experiential")

Once, while sitting in a pew in my ex's church (this was during my first marriage), I was overcome by a sudden, overwhelming - almost to the point of making me physically sick from the vertigo-like sensation - visceral realization that God did not exist.

The closest analogy I've come up with for me sitting there watching also these believers was a sickening feeling of watching a child drag a dead dog - that the child doesn't realize is dead - around on a leash.

So far, I've never given any weight to this epiphany when rationally considering the question of whether God exists. Are you suggesting I rethink this stance and maybe take my epiphany to heart and consider it a valid source of knowledge?

 

[RestlessSoul]

Care to share an epiphany?

Do you think there are false epiphanies?

The poster @Kathryn shared her epiphany, which is what I referred to.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Oh, I've experienced feelings like that. It can certainly feel overwhelming. (Edit: by the same token, though, carbon monoxide poisoning is also "visceral" and "experiential")

Once, while sitting in a pew in my ex's church (this was during my first marriage), I was overcome by a sudden, overwhelming - almost to the point of making me physically sick from the vertigo-like sensation - visceral realization that God did not exist.

The closest analogy I've come up with for me sitting there watching also these believers was a sickening feeling of watching a child drag a dead dog - that the child doesn't realize is dead - around on a leash.

So far, I've never given any weight to this epiphany when rationally considering the question of whether God exists. Are you suggesting I rethink this stance and maybe take my epiphany to heart and consider it a valid source of knowledge?

You are uniquely qualified to evaluate your own experiences. You certainly have a very vivid imagination, but I wouldn't venture an opinion on your experience beyond that observation; though a psychologist might.

The question I would ask is, what qualifies you to evaluate another person's?

 

[an anarchist]

The closest analogy I've come up with for me sitting there watching also these believers was a sickening feeling of watching a child drag a dead dog - that the child doesn't realize is dead - around on a leash.

God, that's a great analogy. I'm saving that in my memory log to use irl.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You are uniquely qualified to evaluate your own experiences. You certainly have a very vivid imagination, but I wouldn't venture an opinion on your experience beyond that observation; though a psychologist might.

The question I would ask is, what qualifies you to evaluate another person's?

What do you think I'm evaluating, exactly?

Drawing a conclusion about something external from one's experience involves a few steps:

1. The actual experience of some set of phenomena.
2. Determining that these phenomena were caused by something external to the mind rather than internal.
3. Inferring the external cause of the phenomena.

The only part of this that's only accessible to the person with the experience is Step 1, but I'm taking as given everything that @Kathryn said about her experience.

Steps 2 and 3 can be done by anyone. And I'd also argue that the judgment of someone who's high on carbon monoxide fumes is probably not reliable for step 2.

 

[Kathryn]

And of course they are only going to focus on the experience with the carbon monoxide poisoning, rather than the other two experiences combined. It's OK though, I'll just go by my doctor's recommendation.

 

[Audie]

God, that's a great analogy. I'm saving that in my memory log to use irl.

We wonder about the coming epiphany

 

[RestlessSoul]

What do you think I'm evaluating, exactly?

Drawing a conclusion about something external from one's experience involves a few steps:

1. The actual experience of some set of phenomena.
2. Determining that these phenomena were caused by something external to the mind rather than internal.
3. Inferring the external cause of the phenomena.

The only part of this that's only accessible to the person with the experience is Step 1, but I'm taking as given everything that @Kathryn said about her experience.

Steps 2 and 3 can be done by anyone. And I'd also argue that the judgment of someone who's high on carbon monoxide fumes is probably not reliable for step 2.

Okay, cards on the table; I don’t think you are capable of evaluating any proposition of a spiritual nature without bias. It’s not like you make any effort to hide your prejudice against any such concept. But that’s beside my original point, which was that one cannot assess the weight, depth, or validity of another person's experience, because experience is necessarily subjective. That doesn't mean you are in any way obligated to accept that person's interpretation of their experience; it simply means you are in no way qualified to dismiss it; unless, perhaps, you happen to be that person's psychiatrist, psycho-analyst, etc.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

And of course they are only going to focus on the experience with the carbon monoxide poisoning, rather than the other two experiences combined. It's OK though, I'll just go by my doctor's recommendation.

I counted one other experience in your post, which I mentioned in my reply. Did I miss one?

Personally, I don't find any of those "an unexpected thought that's attributed to the 'still, small voice' of God to be really compelling" sorts of "God experiences" to be compelling. There just doesn't seem to be anything there, IMO.

OTOH, the claim that something - somehow attributed to God for reasons you haven't gotten into - woke you up from unconsciousness to save you from death has aspects that are more compelling, but is complicated by the fact that you were effectively high during the experience, as you seem to acknowledge.

 

[Kathryn]

I counted one other experience in your post, which I mentioned in my reply. Did I miss one?

Personally, I don't find any of those "an unexpected thought that's attributed to the 'still, small voice' of God to be really compelling" sorts of "God experiences" to be compelling. There just doesn't seem to be anything there, IMO.

OTOH, the claim that something - somehow attributed to God for reasons you haven't gotten into - woke you up from unconsciousness to save you from death has aspects that are more compelling, but is complicated by the fact that you were effectively high during the experience, as you seem to acknowledge.

Yes, I recounted three experiences.

Anyway, I never said I was high, and I certainly wasn't, but I was jacked up, I admit that freely. I also believe I stated that I thought two of the three experiences were angels, not God per se. And finally, to be completely honest, I don't care whether or not you believe me about the small still voice. It mattered to me. I am not trying to prove anything to you.

Anyway, I am off for some real life adventures.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Okay, cards on the table; I don’t think you are capable of evaluating any proposition of a spiritual nature without bias.

Everyone has bias. This is why we evaluate claims in a systematic way.

It’s not like you make any effort to hide your prejudice against any such concept. But that’s beside my original point, which was that one cannot assess the weight, depth, or validity of another person's experience, because experience is necessarily subjective.

But I'm acknowledging the experience. The explanation for or attribution of an experience is not the experience itself.

If someone tells me "I experienced experience X, therefore I know that thing Y is real," well... it's fair game to ask how that works rationally. What about X suggests Y and only Y? Can anything besides Y cause experience X? How do you know?

You say that X happened - okay; let's accept that completely and see what it implies... but I've never seen an X that implies that God must have been behind it.

That doesn't mean you are in any way obligated to accept that person's interpretation of their experience; it simply means you are in no way qualified to dismiss it; unless, perhaps, you happen to be that person's psychiatrist, psycho-analyst, etc.

How have I dismissed anything? Like I said, I'm taking as given that every aspect of @Kathryn 's experience happened as she described.

 

[an anarchist]

@mikkel_the_dane
Boltzmann brain was an interesting read

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...
@mikkel_the_dane
Boltzmann brain was an interesting read

Now keep that in mind and then read this section about science:
Naturalism's axiomatic assumptions

Philosophy of science - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

And then compare with this education site about science:

Science has limits: A few things that science does not do - Understanding Science

undsci.berkeley.edu

"
Science doesn’t draw conclusions about supernatural explanations
Do gods exist? Do supernatural entities intervene in human affairs? These questions may be important, but science won’t help you answer them. Questions that deal with supernatural explanations are, by definition, beyond the realm of nature — and hence, also beyond the realm of what can be studied by science. For many, such questions are matters of personal faith and spirituality."

Now personally I have faith in and believe that the universe is real, epistemologically fair, orderly and knowable, but I have no truth, proof or evidence for that.

 

[an anarchist]

Now personally I have faith in and believe that the universe is real, epistemologically fair, orderly and knowable, but I have no truth, proof or evidence for that.

But you do have plenty of evidence. You just have a philosophical reason to doubt perception. But the evidence for a real world is all around you.

 

[Madsaac]

Something is true and not true as based on induction as used as a form of logic.

Thanks, what about a real example in life

As for: "Yeah but we're getting pedantic. ...". That is your subjective opinion. I have another one.

Yes, it is but my point is that you could just keep diving deeper & deeper into each aspect of knowledge. I know there is so much more but having the basis of what knowledge is what's important to to me.

So regarding knowledge and beliefs, is any of this 'wrong' in a broader sense or left anything major out. Thanks

Knowledge, beliefs and understanding are gained in two ways
Rationalism (Nature) and Empiricism (Nurture)

Express your knowledge, beliefs and understanding in two main ways:
Subjectively (Opinion) such as feelings, interpretations, thoughts. (Doesn't always need evidence of some sort)
Objectively (Fact) For example, physics. (Always needs evidence of some sort)

And all of this largely depends on your level of consciousness.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

But you do have plenty of evidence. You just have a philosophical reason to doubt perception. But the evidence for a real world is all around you.

Thanks, what about a real example in life

Yes, it is but my point is that you could just keep diving deeper & deeper into each aspect of knowledge. I know there is so much more but having the basis of what knowledge is what's important to to me.

So regarding knowledge and beliefs, is any of this 'wrong' in a broader sense or left anything major out. Thanks

Knowledge, beliefs and understanding are gained in two ways
Rationalism (Nature) and Empiricism (Nurture)

Express your knowledge, beliefs and understanding in two main ways:
Subjectively (Opinion) such as feelings, interpretations, thoughts. (Doesn't always need evidence of some sort)
Objectively (Fact) For example, physics. (Always needs evidence of some sort)

And all of this largely depends on your level of consciousness.

You both in effect take methodological naturalism as a fact, but it is not. Now I value honesty and thus I am honest and tell about the limit of evidence as it is in effect a belief system. That is it.

 

[Madsaac]

methodological naturalism as a fact, but it is not

But it is the closest thing to a fact or to the truth......and evidence supports this.

Everything else is merely an opinion or a belief.

I see clearly now

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

But it is the closest thing to a fact or to the truth......and evidence supports this.

Everything else is merely an opinion or a belief.

I see clearly now

That, the bold one, is also merely an opinion or a belief.

And by see, you mean subjectively understand and not objectively observe.

You have a subjective worldview, I have another subjective one.

 

[RestlessSoul]

But it is the closest thing to a fact or to the truth......and evidence supports this.

Everything else is merely an opinion or a belief.

I see clearly now

It has shown itself to be the best way to learn about the material world. But to assume that the material world is all of reality, is an opinion (or belief) in itself.

Besides, science has shown us also, that the material world is seldom what it appears to us to be. It deceives us as to it’s true (always elusive) nature; almost the definition then, of an illusion.