Whats the proof that god exists?

[psychosporin]

I guess I was a little vague in my post...What i meant, was people just told me to pray to god, not giving me a reason why. All they told me was that he loved me and that he made me. Until I prove to my self that he DOES love me and made me, i shall remain skeptical. Example, I was raised as a Seventh Day Adventist, for those of you who don't know what those are, they believe that Saturday is the sabbath, and that you shouldn't eat pork, ect. I don't like pork much anyways, but that's besides the point. i was just told to believe and follow those rules, thinking that that was the only way to get into heaven. What i should have meant is that i need to prove to myself these things about god.

i guess i shouldn't have used the terms "higher power" "creative force" ect, but i was frustrated by how many different beliefs of the different denominations of christianity, compared to the one denomination of the Islamic faith. But, i suppose that i would rather be christian than anything else, except some "Christian" denominations that are cult like.

 

[ThOrNe]

Your reply kinda sounds like one i made earlier...that our beliefs are based largely on gullibility. And you didn't have to appologize pyscho (see you monday lol)

 

[Mumeishi]

We don't know if our universe (ie. visible universe - the space time continuum of which we are a part), has an external cause, ie is part of something greater or not. Nor does it seem impossible that an intelligent entity in another part of the multiverse caused a real or virtual universe to come into being. But what is clear is that there is no evidence to reasonable cause us to assume that or worse to assume the existence of something which the concept of which is unintelligible - what does infinitely good or infinitely powerful mean? It is nonsensical when you think about it.

Its also clear that 'a feeling of certainty' (ie faith) is not sufficient justification for belief (go visit a mental hospital to find out why). Nor is something being written down in an old religious text sufficient justification, otherwise we should all be learning the Pyramid Texts and worshipping Ra, Osiris, and Isis - it is significantly older than the bible after all.

If the idea of God answers the mysteries in life at all, it does so by avoiding explaining anything and pushing those mysteries further back - subsuming them in the 'ineffable mystery of God'.

How does reality look the way it does?
'Because there is a being that can do anything and he did it.'
How?
'He can do anything'
Why?
'He has a mysterious plan'

So why do people believe? Over time, the most appealing and socially powerful religious ideas have survived and become more and more effective at spreading by using strategies such as bypassing rational thought and manipulating people through their primal emotions of love, hate and fear.

 

[Rader]

Originally posted by Mumeishi
We don't know if our universe (ie. visible universe - the space time continuum of which we are a part), has an external cause, ie is part of something greater or not. Nor does it seem impossible that an intelligent entity in another part of the multiverse caused a real or virtual universe to come into being. But what is clear is that there is no evidence to reasonable cause us to assume that or worse to assume the existence of something which the concept of which is unintelligible - what does infinitely good or infinitely powerful mean? It is nonsensical when you think about it.

Its also clear that 'a feeling of certainty' (ie faith) is not sufficient justification for belief (go visit a mental hospital to find out why). Nor is something being written down in an old religious text sufficient justification, otherwise we should all be learning the Pyramid Texts and worshipping Ra, Osiris, and Isis - it is significantly older than the bible after all.

If the idea of God answers the mysteries in life at all, it does so by avoiding explaining anything and pushing those mysteries further back - subsuming them in the 'ineffable mystery of God'.

How does reality look the way it does?
'Because there is a being that can do anything and he did it.'
How?
'He can do anything'
Why?
'He has a mysterious plan'

So why do people believe? Over time, the most appealing and socially powerful religious ideas have survived and become more and more effective at spreading by using strategies such as bypassing rational thought and manipulating people through their primal emotions of love, hate and fear.

The only logical answer seems to be, that we do not understand his mysterious plan and all this fuss is part of the plan.

One hopefull note is that, the people who believe, also believe that mind body and spirit is evolving towards a greater perfection.

 

[Bariyon]

Mumeishi,

Regarding the belief that a theory of everything exists, or at least a more complete theory, I don't doubt this either.

But regarding the existence of god, there are people who believe that there must be more to life than there presently is.

It may be possible that these people are attempting to express an experiential sense of what lies beyond our present understanding.

It is possible that some scientists are involved in the same process of expressing intuitions that lie beyond the usual intellectual faculties. Such scientists would view that their laboratory is their own body.

The way I see things, the prophets were the ancient equivalents of the scientist, albeit with a different programme. The writings of the prophets are widely misunderstood, perhaps even more so these days. For example, if a prophet writes that we shall not wear garments that are a mixture of wool and linen, either this prophet is being extremely petty, or he is up to something else that is beyond some of us.

It is no coincidence that no one has a theory of everything, and no one understands the prophets.

 

[Mumeishi]

Both of you,

It's all wishful thinking. There is no actual justification to believe any of this - only the desire to find something to combat a sense that the reality we do know is insufficiently fulfilling for many people.

 

[phoenixthoth]

Mumeishi,

prove that God does not exist.

until you do, i will consider your apparent belief that God does not exist wishful thinking and irrational, not unlike those in a mental institution.

i'm wondering if the postulation of a hell is also wishful thinking.

is this something you believe that you can't prove?

 

[Mumeishi]

Define 'God'.

 

[phoenixthoth]

how about the definition you were using when you wrote this:
"If the idea of God answers the mysteries in life at all..."

 

[Rader]

Originally posted by Mumeishi
Define 'God'.

We could define him as being a exellent scientist.

 

[Mumeishi]

I said 'if..'. Frankly, it's not a concept I have come across an intelligible definition for, which reflects its common usage, so to say 'God does or does not exist' is gobbledigook to me.

Why is it that people have no problem understanding that the onus of proof is on the assertor of an idea except when it comes to God, they seem to conveniently forget?

Can you prove that there is no such thing as invisible blue elephants?
No.
Does this mean that they exist?
No.
Does this mean that my belief in them is as valid as your lack of belief in them?
No.
Does this mean that believing in them is rational or justified?
No.

Now replace 'invisible blue elephants' with 'God'. Actually at least the former is an intelligible idea.

 

[Mumeishi]

Originally posted by Rader
We could define him as being a exellent scientist.

Oh I believe in those. Einstein, Faraday, Hawking are all excellent scientists. Where does he live?

 

[Rader]

Originally posted by Mumeishi
Oh I believe in those. Einstein, Faraday, Hawking are all excellent scientists. Where does he live?

Thats the million dollar question, you made my day. Thats the first time i had someone ask where he lives. He has a unlisted address this year. Try next year we might know.

 

[phoenixthoth]

Why is it that people have no problem understanding that the onus of proof is on the assertor of an idea except when it comes to God, they seem to conveniently forget?

same applies to an assertor of the idea "God does not exist." just out of curiousity, if God is a concept you consider "gobbledigook," then why would you talk about it? if someone started a thread entitled "what's the proof that )(*&!#0 exists," i wouldn't participate most likely. i have the feeling that you actually have some idea what God might be.

Can you prove that there is no such thing as invisible blue elephants?
No.
Does this mean that they exist?
No.
Does this mean that my belief in them is as valid as your lack of belief in them?
No.
Does this mean that believing in them is rational or justified?
No.

does this mean that one who believes in them is incorrect?
no.
does this mean that one who believes in them is correct?
no.

please tell my if I'm mischaracterizing your statements. i call this the santa clause argument:
SANTA CLAUSE ARGUMENT
1. belief in imaginary beings is illogical and delusional.
2. beliefs that are illogical and delusional are automatically wrong.
3. therefore, God does not exist.

you seem to be alternating between one who thinks 'God' is intelligible enough to talk about and then to decide it's not an intelligible subject when it's convienient for you.

suppose you can't prove God does not exist. what word do you use to describe when you believe something you can't prove?

 

[Mumeishi]

Originally posted by phoenixthoth
same applies to an assertor of the idea "God does not exist." just out of curiousity, if God is a concept you consider "gobbledigook," then why would you talk about it? if someone started a thread entitled "what's the proof that )(*&!#0 exists," i wouldn't participate most likely. i have the feeling that you actually have some idea what God might be.

If someone told me that an entity existed with characteristics quantified as infinite, the consequences of which is isolation and combination lead to absurd conclusion I would have to say that I could not make sense of the proposed concept or entity.

Originally posted by phoenixthoth

does this mean that one who believes in them is incorrect?
no.
does this mean that one who believes in them is correct?
no.

There is no such thing as absolute certainty in this world. We cannot eliminate the possibility of invisible blue elephants and we cannot eliminate the possibility of a 'higher power' (of some sort). That doesn't mean that it is justiified to believe in them without any evidence, especially when there are far more powerful and useful explanations for the phenomena they we originally dreamed up to explain.

Originally posted by phoenixthoth

please tell my if I'm mischaracterizing your statements. i call this the santa clause argument:
SANTA CLAUSE ARGUMENT
1. belief in imaginary beings is illogical and delusional.
2. beliefs that are illogical and delusional are automatically wrong.
3. therefore, God does not exist.

Yes you are. Where did you pull that from? Try again.

Originally posted by phoenixthoth

you seem to be alternating between one who thinks 'God' is intelligible enough to talk about and then to decide it's not an intelligible subject when it's convienient for you.

Perhaps I wasn't being very clear. I must be able to understand the concept enough to discuss it, but I certainly can't make sense of the supposed characteristics of that concept.

Originally posted by phoenixthoth

suppose you can't prove God does not exist. what word do you use to describe when you believe something you can't prove?

'Sanity'.

The belief in X is not justified by reason or evidence.
It is not justified to believe in X.
I have absolutely no reason to believe in X, so I don't have a belief in X.
I believe (but cannot know) that there is no X. In other words, I'd be extremeley surprised if anything like X existed. And I'd be even more surprised if X existed as described since I cannot make sense of it.
It would be irrational to act as if X existed, when there are hypotheses with very real evidence and which are not self-contradictory.

There are an unlimited number of undisprovable concepts which can be entered where X is. God has exactly the same level of credibility as invisible elephants, elves, santa claus, and the purple unicorn from dimension X.

The thing that causes people to take this concept is that it is emotionally seductive and those who are introduced to it are also asked to give up their critical thinking faculties with regard to the concept.

 

[phoenixthoth]

so belief in something you can't prove is both sanity and unjustified. interesting. in particular, belief in God though you can't prove it is sanity and unjusitified.

some would call it 'faith'.

 

[Mumeishi]

Yes, please deliberately misunderstand me - good tactic.

There is indeed a certain element of faith involved in all beliefs. There is a gap between what is absoloutely knowable (very little or nothing) and the things we need to act as if true in order to have a reasonably accurate model of the world and thus hopefully survive in it.

If I wait for a bus, there is a degree of faith that one will eventually come. When I go to sleep there is a degree of faith that the sun will rise the next morning. When I drive a car, there is a degree of faith that the laws of physics won't suddenly change and make the tarmac fload off into the air.

The faith involved here is rational and based on evidence. It is just a matter of choosing the likelihood shown to be most probable by evidence and reason - for pragmatic reasons sometimes we need to close the hypothetical gap in our knowledge and act and think (at least for a while) as if something is certain. Otherwise we would remain in a state of permanent scepticism and indecision.

Now, believing something *entirely* on the basis of faith and, with a *lack* of any evidence or *contrary* to it, is *not* the same or symmetrical at all, which is what you are implying. Its an entirely different kettle of invisible purple fish.

 

[Mumeishi]

Forgive me if I'm not being absolutely clear - I've recently adjusted my stance on this and I'm still clarifying the details in my own head.

Many atheists insist on 'weak atheism' (a statement of lack of belief) as the rational position and in a sense this is true. Until very recently I agreed. However, the reality of the situation is that I believe that the idea that God exists is false. Why is this? Can I justify it?

I don't claim to *know* that there is no God, as I am not omniscient and there may be something about the situation I'm missing - my belief is a working model. To the best of my knowledge there is no more justification for belief in the existence of god than thee is justification for belief in invisible pink elephants on Alpha Centauri. And if someone asked me if I believed there were such creatures I would have to say 'no'. This doesn't mean I claim to know that there are none, but without evidence it seems unlikely.

It is a statement of probability suggested by the available evidence and of what hypothesis I'm working with. It is not possible to function in the world in a state of complete agnosticism - we have to commit ourselves to an idea to be able to do anything.

I think there *is* an element of faith in this - the same sort of faith that gravity won't suddenly invert, or that the sun will rise each morning, in other words, faith justified by the high probabilities suggested by evidence and reason.

This is not the same as religious faith, which exists contrary to or at least in isolation from evidence or rational thought. Hypotheses are not accepted purely on faith except for God for some odd reason and the argument that God is an exception because he 'cannot be apprehended by reason' or some such, fails because it presupposes his existence and characteristics in order to prove them. Any number of ridiculous ideas can be constructed which would magically pull themselves up by their bootstraps in this way.

 

[Wolf]

God

Aparently in the bible god said

"i shall not proof my existence because that denies faith and without faith i do not exist" this is saying that he exists as long as us humans choose to believe in him and have faith in him or her i apologize for using he so much it is a force of habit

 

[Mumeishi]

What sort of puny existence is that? Even God admits he is only an idea.

 

[phoenixthoth]

are you saying that while it is likely that the sun will rise tomorrow, it is unlikely that pink elephants exist on alpha centauri and that God exists? while i can see how it might be unlikely that pink elephants exist on alpha centauri, mainly because it's probably too hot to support life (assuming the pink elephant in question is a type of life form we're accustomed to), I'm not sure how one goes about calculating the odds that God exists. how is this done? i would assume that in order to calculate the odds, or just estimate the odds and call the event "unlikely," that one would have to have a definition of God. what is the definition you're using?

 

[Mumeishi]

Taking the common Christian definition of 'God' (omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, disembodied intelligence or 'spirit' - whatever that is - that exists beyond our univese and created it and and gave us the purpose of being moral, and acknowledging him through faith, etc), how much reliable evidence is there for such a being? Here is a quick round-up of the evidence I'm aware of:

- private, subjective feelings of 'spirituality' (does not equal evidence that they are anything more than experiences caused by brain events)
- anecdotes of miracles (number confirmed by independent verification = 0)
- the Old and New Testament - claimed to be 'the word of God' (fails because the authority that they are the word of God is the texts themselves - it's circular, plus of course there are the internal inconsistencies, inconsistencies with demonstrable reality and the fact that there are a range of other texts saying contrary things, all claiming to be the 'true word of God/Allah etc'
- The existence of the universe itself. (The existence of a thing is not evidence for one particular explanation for a thing - salt exists, therefor the salt-cellar of the gods must exist? No.)
- The existence of life. (Same argument above applie, plus there are other explanations which have substantial *actual evidence* are more powerful, and provide actual detailed explanation of the processes rather than sweeping, nonspecific ones, like 'God did it' or naive, implausible ones, like 'he made man out of clay, then made woman out of his rib').

Therefore the verifiable evidence is nil. There is certainly no more evidence for a Judeo-Christian account than there is for a Shinto, Hindu or Ancient Egyptian account.

What is the evidence for the hypothesis that invisible elephant-like creatures live on a planet orbiting Alpha-Centauri or that extra-dimensional pixies inhabit this planet? Hypothetically it should not be excluded, but again there is no verifiable evidence, so the possibility remains purely hypothetical.

Furthermore this 'God' entity is proposed to possesses a number of characteristics which we have no other examples of and have difficulty even making sense of - so we don't even know if it is even possible for such a thing to exist. For example, he is said to exist outside of the universe - we don't know of any space, time or existence of any sort in which he could exist and without those concepts, in what sense can he be said to exist and to have causal relationships with our universe? If he is part of (or all of) some 'greater reality', where did it come from? This is not an explanation for the origin of everything at all its just a case of pushing the problem further backing into a transcendent reality and clouding it with 'mysterious unknowability'. If the greater reality 'always was' or 'is not subject to the concept of time' then why can't we say the same about our universe as a totality? Indeed, relativity shows time to be a *property of* the universe, not something which the universe *exists in*.

Another example is the concept of omnipotence and the conundrum this leads to. If He is all-powerful, and all-good, why is life so crappy sometimes and why is there evil? Freewill and suffering are necessary for our spiritual development and judgement I hear you say. But an all-powerful God would be able to perfect us without resort to such indirect, inefficient and painful means. And, does the concept of unlimited power actually mean anything? Can he create a rock that he cannot lift or not? Can he make a square circle? Can he make good actions evil and vice versa?

Faced with the logical absurdities even of the concept of God's existence let alone the absense of evidence, I'd have to put him into the vast category of vanishingly small possibilities and apparent impossibilities - probably some way below the invisible pink elephants and extra-dimensional elves. The fact that there are as many of these undemonstrated and untestable hypotheses as we have imagination to think of them is significant. If we accept them we would not be able to function due to uncertainty and indecision - our knowledge of reality would be effectively zero. The default state of our knowledge is not zero, ie. not a certainty that hypothesis X is false. This background of vanishing hypothetical possibilities is actually the default state. And the 'God' concept slides right into it along with unicorns and jabberwockys. What we need to find the 'real' as opposed to the merely 'conceived of' is something which will pull the proposed hypothesis out of this near-infinite mass of vanishing possibilities - that is why we seek verifiable evidence and how human understanding has advanced over the millenia. The thing that pulls the 'God' concept out of this background is not evidence or even reason, it is IMO that the memetic evolutionary complex that is religion has evolved a powerful emotional appeal and a doctrine which encourages people to circumvent the usual need for evidence and reason and accept this particular hypothesis on a faith-alone basis. See Richard Dawkins and Susan Blackmore for more details.

If, we are motivated to do so, we can redefine 'God ' in such a way that it avoids many of these logical problems. If we accept a finite entity of some sort, which nevertheless created our local universe and may have great power over it and exists in some sort of hypothetical transcendent reality, like a computer programmer who creates a simulated world, then we at least have a coherent idea. There is however, still no evidence for it, it still has no real explanatory power, it isn't the Judeo-Christian god and there is no verifiable way to acertain its intentions for our behaviour if any, no divine support (let alone absolute moral imperative) for the claim that homosexuality is evil, for example.

 

[phoenixthoth]

private, subjective feelings of 'spirituality' (does not equal evidence that they are anything more than experiences caused by brain events)

what subjective experiences aren't caused by brain events? how was it determined that the brain events caused the spiritual feelings and not that something spiritual caused the brain events?

 

[Mumeishi]

All experiences correspond to brain events. Experiences can be triggered by artificially stimulated associated brain areas, therefore a causal relationship in this direction is shown or more likely IMO an identity relationship - the brain event is the experience from a different perspective. There is no evidence even for a separate 'spirit' to cause these events - its pure conjecture.

We don't need divine intervention to cause these events - we can do it with magnets on the temporal lobes.

 

[phoenixthoth]

that the experience can be simulated by other means (magnets or whatnot) proves what, even if it were possible? how was it determined that the brain events caused the spiritual feelings and not that something spiritual caused the brain events?

does subjective brain experience associated with perception of the outside universe provide evidence that it exists? why that and not the subjective brain experience associated with the perception of a spiritual presence? what makes some subjective experiences a more reliable indicator of reality than others?

 

[Mumeishi]

Originally posted by phoenixthoth
that the experience can be simulated by other means (magnets or whatnot) proves what, even if it were possible? how was it determined that the brain events caused the spiritual feelings and not that something spiritual caused the brain events?

It has been done, many times, including artificial stimulation of the temporal lobes to invoke religious-type experiences. The neuroscientist's decision whether to and how to stimulate the brain produces a fairly predictable result. What's the alternative? That God 'secretly conspired' to give the person a religious experience at the exact same time as the neuroscientist or through his actions? Apart from being absurdly implausible and rather pathetic of God, that would violate the neurosurgeon's freewill and we all know how important God values that.

Originally posted by phoenixthoth
does subjective brain experience associated with perception of the outside universe provide evidence that it exists? why that and not the subjective brain experience associated with the perception of a spiritual presence? what makes some subjective experiences a more reliable indicator of reality than others?

Because the former is verified by multiple observers.

 

[phoenixthoth]

did you note the word "simulate" in my question? if i could concoct a drug (or some other stimulus) to simulate perception X does that mean that nothing else in reality gives rise to perception X independent of the drug?

Because the former is verified by multiple observers.

muliple people have had spiritual experiences. i don't see the relevance in that those multiple obervers are coming through in a subjective brain state. so if a million people say a horse exists (because they may have experienced it in some way/ways), then it does, while if a million people say God exists (because they may have experienced it in some way/ways), that is less reliable? if i could put a magnetic field around someone's head and they suddenly saw a horse when i did so, does that mean horses don't exist?

 

[Mumeishi]

Originally posted by phoenixthoth
did you note the word "simulate" in my question? if i could concoct a drug (or some other stimulus) to simulate perception X does that mean that nothing else in reality gives rise to perception X independent of the drug?

We cannot make that assumption.

If the drug or other 'artificial' stimulus is the cause of an experience, then the experience will occur in the presence of the stimulus and not when it is absent. It is really IMO activity of a certain sort in the temporal lobes which *is* the experience and this activity can occur 'spontaneously' or artificially. Yes, the spontaneous activity could hypothetically have an invisible cause (like 'God'). But you are missing the point. These experiments show that 'God' is not a necessary factor for such experiences, therefor using such experiences as evidence for god is unsound, which was my original point.

The relationship seems to be an ordinary causal one:
stimulate temporal lobe > religious experience
stop stimulation > experience ends

It happens when the neuroscientist wills - it doesn't rely on God's will.

Originally posted by phoenixthoth

muliple people have had spiritual experiences. i don't see the relevance in that those multiple obervers are coming through in a subjective brain state. so if a million people say a horse exists (because they may have experienced it in some way/ways), then it does, while if a million people say God exists (because they may have experienced it in some way/ways), that is less reliable?

if i could put a magnetic field around someone's head and they suddenly saw a horse when i did so, does that mean horses don't exist?

It means the 'horse' may only exist as a mental experience. Few would deny that 'God' exists as a concept and possible experience - it's whether He is more than this which needs to be proved. What sort of a God can be eliminated just by taking a magnet away from someone's head?

A million people saying that something is the case doesn't make it so, but if a million people conduct sound horse research (which is transparent and open to criticism) and conclude there is a horse then it is highly likely that there is, thus the existence of the horse is established as a recognised 'fact'.

You really want to get into this subjectivist/idealist nonsense? You must be getting desperate.

 

[Rader]

Prove that God does exist or prove that he does not exist.. What is proof? Proof is local individual perception.. The proof of anything is only through the eyes of the observer.. Everything is fallible except the individuals proof.. The proof is set by the individuals paramenters for it.. Proof that God does or does not exist is provable only if you want to prove it to yourself.

 

[phoenixthoth]

We cannot make that assumption.

so we assume the contrary.

If the drug or other 'artificial' stimulus is the cause of an experience, then the experience will occur in the presence of the stimulus and not when it is absent. It is really IMO activity of a certain sort in the temporal lobes which *is* the experience and this activity can occur 'spontaneously' or artificially. Yes, the spontaneous activity could hypothetically have an invisible cause (like 'God'). But you are missing the point. These experiments show that 'God' is not a necessary factor for such experiences, therefor using such experiences as evidence for god is unsound, which was my original point.

the reason why those experiences occur spontaneously is what?

The relationship seems to be an ordinary causal one:
stimulate temporal lobe > religious experience
stop stimulation > experience ends

It happens when the neuroscientist wills - it doesn't rely on God's will.

what about this situation:
The relationship seems to be an ordinary causal one:
X > certain (consciousness/brain) state permitting > religious experience
X > certain (consciousness/brain) state preventing > experience ends

or
X > religious experience
X stops > experience ends

the idea is that there is some sense (call it the third eye for lack of better term) that can percieve aspects of God that the normal five senses can't perceive and some things facilitate the opening of the third eye and some things facilitate the closing of the third eye.

it's still logically unsound, as far as i can tell, to attribute divinity to whatever may be leading to religious experiences (the phrase spiritual experiences is more apt in some cases).

It means the 'horse' may only exist as a mental experience. Few would deny that 'God' exists as a concept and possible experience - it's whether He is more than this which needs to be proved. What sort of a God can be eliminated just by taking a magnet away from someone's head?

why would you say God is eliminated when the magnet is taken away? if i close my eyes and no longer perceive a horse, is it no longer there?

A million people saying that something is the case doesn't make it so, but if a million people conduct sound horse research (which is transparent and open to criticism) and conclude there is a horse then it is highly likely that there is, thus the existence of the horse is established as a recognised 'fact'.

yes, and how do these researchers let you know they've done what you think is sound research? by either saying it or other communication. are you sure there's no sound research done in the arena of what you're talking about? the convienient notion perpetuated is that, as far as i know, few scientists are willing to investigate divinity and therefore adherents to science can say that no sound research has been done. i would like to get my hands on some of the work done by david hawkins, a scientist working in these areas.

You really want to get into this subjectivist/idealist nonsense? You must be getting desperate.

the idea was whether or not a perception being recreatable by something other than the object of perception being there proves that object does not exist.

 

[Mumeishi]

so we assume the contrary.

Not at all. I think my argument is quite clear. Why is this so difficult? Let me repeat myself:

But you are missing the point. These experiments show that 'God' is not a necessary factor for such experiences, therefor using such experiences as evidence for god is unsound, which was my original point.

Are you with me?

the reason why those experiences occur spontaneously is what?

Seizures of the temporal lobe are thought to cause such experiences spontaneously. This is not dissimilar to an epileptic fit, which can also be localised. I don't have any knowledge of how such seizures start.

what about this situation:
The relationship seems to be an ordinary causal one:
X > certain (consciousness/brain) state permitting > religious experience
X > certain (consciousness/brain) state preventing > experience ends

or
X > religious experience
X stops > experience ends

the idea is that there is some sense (call it the third eye for lack of better term) that can percieve aspects of God that the normal five senses can't perceive and some things facilitate the opening of the third eye and some things facilitate the closing of the third eye.

Yes, I've come across this idea and if there is a 'third eye' the temporal lobe seems like a very good candidate (although there are two of them of course). Again, my point is that this structure and the resulting religious experiences have been shown to be activated 'artificially' by a magnetic field and presumably any seizure which happens to occur in that area may lead to such experiences. There is no evidence of your proposed mysterious undetectable agency 'X'. I would invoke Occam's razor to excise 'X' as unevidenced and unnecessary. There is no more reason to assume 'x' than there is to invoke 'football pixies' which intervene every time my foot makes contact with a ball at speed.

Anyway what sort of diety would allow his means of communion with man to be usurped in such a base manner? I was under the impression that religious experiences were supposed to be God making direct contact with the soul (or vice versa). Is the soul the temporal lobe? 'No but perhaps the TL is the bridge between the body and the soul I hear you say'. But then why should God need to go through the physical route to access the soul? And again, why should he let neurosurgeons access the soul with magnets?

it's still logically unsound, as far as i can tell, to attribute divinity to whatever may be leading to religious experiences (the phrase spiritual experiences is more apt in some cases).

I couldn't agree more! LOL

why would you say God is eliminated when the magnet is taken away? if i close my eyes and no longer perceive a horse, is it no longer there?yes, and how do these researchers let you know they've done what you think is sound research? by either saying it or other communication.

I may have misunderstood your point first time round. Again, this is getting into subjectivism and idealism. Do you really want to get into that argument too? The researchers publish their results along with specific details of methodology. Others can criticize this methodology or repeat the experiment. If they get different results then questions must be asked and more research done to clarify the matter. No research can ever be 100% objective, but much observer bias is removed in this way - research techniques are honed over time and greater objectivity becomes possible.

are you sure there's no sound research done in the arena of what you're talking about? the convienient notion perpetuated is that, as far as i know, few scientists are willing to investigate divinity and therefore adherents to science can say that no sound research has been done. i would like to get my hands on some of the work done by david hawkins, a scientist working in these areas.

Feel free to cite some if you find it. I take resorting to the claims of academic conspiracy as a sign of a crackpot theory. You find exactly the same sort of claims among those who claim that the pyramids were built by Atlanteans. The most powerful and wealthy nation on Earth 9the US) is overwhelming theistic, including the President and many of the funders of the government. If there were any possibility of providing evidence which supported Christianity, the moticvation and possible funding would be high. And you are claiming there is a conspiracy *against* theism! A similar argument could be made about some Islamic states.

the idea was whether or not a perception being recreatable by something other than the object of perception being there proves that object does not exist.

I never said that this research 'proves God does not exist'. What it proves is that God is not a necessary factor for religious experiences to occur. It negates the value of such experiences as evidence for God. The 'God hypothesis' has no real explanatory power and is an unnecessary concept.

 

[Mumeishi]

So is this like the moment in an action film where everything goes quiet, the hero surveys the battlefield and realizes that he has won and that he is surrounded only by corpses and perhaps a few allies?

Or do I have a few more wounded theists to impale first?

 

[Mumeishi]

And where's the love interest? I hope she was watching.

 

[Merlin]

High TOXICs Deception

HIGHLYTOXIC you ask a deceptive question, looking for a true answer? Post a pure question for a pure answer.

 

[Mumeishi]

Seems like a pretty straightforward question to me. How on Earth is it deceptive?

Define 'impure' and tell us how can you demonstrate that it is 'impure'.

If 'pure' means 'in accordance with Christian doctrine' or 'not rocking the boat for Christian doctrine' then that's begging the question, because we are still trying to establish any credibility for Christian doctrine.