People claiming "personal" surety of gods existance.

zoomtard

Zillah wrote: »

Ah, now we're getting down to it, ye olde scorched earth policy: "No one can really know anything! cough Therefore God is as likely as anything else cough. Now watch as I behave exactly as if everything with empirical support were true and everything that lacks it were untrue except in the special case of my magic God who makes me feel nice."

You people.

Where did I say any of that?

King Mob

zoomtard wrote: »

Can you empirically prove that empiricism is applicable to all claims of truth?

Simple really.
Using empirical reasoning you can determine whether or not something is true by testing a hypothesis about the subject.
As long as you can observe something's behaviour you can form a hypothesis.
And you can observe something's behaviour by verifying your observations.

Now can you please show a single example of something we know is true,that isn't supported by empirical evidence.

zoomtard wrote: »

Because I do not think my love of God is within the appropriate domain of empirical enquiry. For one thing, it is personal to me. Hence, empiricism is irrelevant.

This is special pleading.
You can claim this about anything as an excuse to avoid questioning it, it doesn't mean it's immune to it.

zoomtard wrote: »

There is no way and can be no way to empirically demonstrate the Christian God, which is for you equivalent to there being no way to ever show He exists (but not for me). But my faith in his existence is not the subject of this thread or my discussion in it. You keep dragging it there. I just want to talk about knowledge and how its influenced by experience!

Well it seems your knowledge is totally dependant on your unverifiable experiences, while mine is not.

zoomtard wrote: »

So you can show me to some empirical data or peer reviewed work that will verify your claim that the non existence of the God proposed by Christians is a fact?

That's not what I'm claiming as fact is it?

I'm claiming it's a fact that there is no empirical evidence for the existence of god.

zoomtard

King Mob wrote: »

Simple really.
Using empirical reasoning you can determine whether or not something is true by testing a hypothesis about the subject.
As long as you can observe something's behaviour you can form a hypothesis.
And you can observe something's behaviour by verifying your observations.

So where is this paper? Show me the evidence?

KingMob wrote:

Now can you please show a single example of something we know is true,that isn't supported by empirical evidence.

Verify that Gavrilo Princip shot someone on June 28 1914.

King Mob wrote:

This is special pleading.
You can claim this about anything as an excuse to avoid questioning it, it doesn't mean it's immune to it.

You think it is special pleading because you are committed to a radical positivist epistemology that you have not even laid a foundation for, nevermind validated. Lest you think I am dodging, let me lay that out for you: It is special pleading if only truth claims that are subject to empirical validation are valid.

KingMob wrote:

Well it seems your knowledge is totally dependant on your unverifiable experiences, while mine is not.

The extent to which you are not even engaging is demonstrated by your use of the word knowledge. I don't claim to know about God and have not used the language.

King Mob wrote:

That's not what I'm claiming as fact is it?

I'm claiming it's a fact that there is no empirical evidence for the existence of god.

But you now acknowledge, like many others in this thread, that the acceptance of that conclusion is in some sense mediated by personal context?

King Mob

zoomtard wrote: »

So where is this paper? Show me the evidence?

You're simply being pedantic now.
Look up any book that describes the scientific method.

zoomtard wrote: »

Verify that Gavrilo Princip shot someone on June 28 1914.

I'm not too familiar with WW1 history, and not too bothered to look it up to satisfy your pedantry.
Can you explain how we know this by non-empirical methods?

zoomtard wrote: »

You think it is special pleading because you are committed to a radical positivist epistemology that you have not even laid a foundation for, nevermind validated. Lest you think I am dodging, let me lay that out for you: It is special pleading if only truth claims that are subject to empirical validation are valid.

Again I have described how anything that you can observe you can show empirically.
Can you please show me one other truth claim that is exempt from empirical reasoning?

Can you please explain why, other than your personal preference, the existence of God is exempt?

zoomtard wrote: »

The extent to which you are not even engaging is demonstrated by your use of the word knowledge. I don't claim to know about God and have not used the language.

So do you believe he exists or not?
If so how exactly can you be sure?

zoomtard wrote: »

But you now acknowledge, like many others in this thread, that the acceptance of that conclusion is in some sense mediated by personal context?

No, because personal context has no baring on it.

Waking-Dreams

zoomtard wrote: »

I feel awfully intimidated taking on a whole team of atheists.

So why are you arguing here then? What does it matter that the Atheist forum doesn't agree with you? Isn't the real reason you're here because you want some validation and acknowledgment for your ignorance?

Look, you're not the first poster to present these lofty 'arguments' in this forum and I'm sure you won't be the last, but any further creative mental gymnastics to try and prove your point has as much validity as an atheist is doomed to fail.

Sorry, but I think everyone has been very generous with their time pandering to your pedantry.

Maybe you should walk away?

What was it someone once said? Arguing with a creationist* is like trying to play chess with a pigeon; they knock over the pieces, crap on the board and then fly back to their group claiming victory.

* I'm not implying you're a creationst, but anyone's 'personal experience' of God is no more valid than my 'personal experience' of Thor.

Zillah

zoomtard wrote: »

Where did I say any of that?

I was paraphrasing your entire position in this thread so far.

zoomtard

Waking-Dreams wrote: »

So why are you arguing here then? What does it matter that the Atheist forum doesn't agree with you? Isn't the real reason you're here because you want some validation and acknowledgment for your ignorance?

I was being politely self deprecating. I actually find the atonality demonstrated in this thread much more confusing than the antagonism.

KingMob wrote:

You're simply being pedantic now.
Look up any book that describes the scientific method.

I really am not being pedantic. No paper has ever been published that empirically proves that empirical enquiry is the only source of knowledge. That renders your positivism, within its own logic, non-knowledge.

The reason I cite World War I is because history is an essential field of knowledge that is not arrived at by empirical methods (although I do not deny of course that they can provide useful corollaries).

It is also a good example because as personal narrative shapes the individual and informs the conclusions they arrive at, history shapes the collective consciousness and informs the prevailing culture that it creates. This inter-relationship between personal experience and conclusion formation (both rational and irrational) is the topic I have continuously raised (not seeking "some validation and acknowledgment for [my] ignorance").

Honestly, the fact that so many of you are unable to acknowledge what others in this forum declare "trite" is perplexing to me and can only be explained because you can't comprehend the idea of a theist who is rational, educated, articulate and willing to acknowledge the great deal of merit in your philosophies and nor can you comprehend a pale imitation of such a figure, namely me. To use an anachronistic idiom, I scare the bejesus out of ye. Especially Zillah.

But hell! Maybe you have personal experiences that inform the animus?

King Mob

zoomtard wrote: »

I really am not being pedantic. No paper has ever been published that empirically proves that empirical enquiry is the only source of knowledge. That renders your positivism, within its own logic, non-knowledge.

1) I never said that empiricism was the only source of knowledge, just the most accurate and reliable.
2) Empiricism isn't limited to just scientific papers.

The advancement of science using emiprical method is evidence of it's accuracy and reliability.

And since I've asked you at least 5 times now to provide an example of a system that is as accurate or more accurate, you cannot do so.

zoomtard wrote: »

The reason I cite World War I is because history is an essential field of knowledge that is not arrived at by empirical methods (although I do not deny of course that they can provide useful corollaries).

Ok that's simply untrue.
History is both an empirical investigation of the facts (such as Archduke Franz was assassinated) and discussion of opinions about the facts.

But assuming for a second your silly claim is true, how exaclty do you know that Gavrilo Princip was the assassin if not by empirical methods?

zoomtard wrote: »

It is also a good example because as personal narrative shapes the individual and informs the conclusions they arrive at, history shapes the collective consciousness and informs the prevailing culture that it creates. This inter-relationship between personal experience and conclusion formation (both rational and irrational) is the topic I have continuously raised (not seeking "some validation and acknowledgment for [my] ignorance").

My conclusion - based on facts.
Your conclusion - based on personal experience.

zoomtard wrote: »

Honestly, the fact that so many of you are unable to acknowledge what others in this forum declare "trite" is perplexing to me and can only be explained because you can't comprehend the idea of a theist who is rational, educated, articulate and willing to acknowledge the great deal of merit in your philosophies and nor can you comprehend a pale imitation of such a figure, namely me. To use an anachronistic idiom, I scare the bejesus out of ye. Especially Zillah.

But hell! Maybe you have personal experiences that inform the animus?

Wow, are you serious?

Waking-Dreams

I think zoomtarm is quite serious. Reminds me of that anti-skeptic chap.

zoomtard wrote: »

This inter-relationship between personal experience and conclusion formation (both rational and irrational) is the topic I have continuously raised (not seeking "some validation and acknowledgment for [my] ignorance").

OK but are you saying that for us, or are you saying that for yourself? You just sound like you're trying to convince yourself more so than us of your total indifference to validation and acknowledgment.

The thing is, regardless if historical facts were inaccurate back in WWI, etc, because of poor human record keeping, it certainly doesn't validate the notion that claiming a 'personal experience' of God can therefore be a legit and reasonable position for one to take.

That is all.

strobe

Waking-Dreams wrote: »

I think zoomtarm is quite serious. Reminds me of that anti-skeptic chap.

Is it not Antiskeptic?

Zillah

zoomtard wrote: »

you can't comprehend the idea of a theist who is rational, educated, articulate and willing to acknowledge the great deal of merit in your philosophies and nor can you comprehend a pale imitation of such a figure, namely me.

A theist can of course be all of those things. They can be, and are, wrong about all that crazy supernatural gibberish at the same time. I find the notion that an intelligent and articulate individual can throw all of that aside for the sake of the magic-daddy to be alternately fascinating and disappointing, not threatening.

Then again, in a way I suppose it does scare me, though not in the way you imply. At least when a theist is a simple minded fool it is easy to explain it as mere naivety. But when you encounter a human being who's brain ordinarily functions very well and it turns out that even they can be pulled into preposterous bronze age nonsense? That's pretty scary. That can't be stupidity or ignorance. It has to be in the insanity family. Notice that you've not actually deigned to make an argument for God, nor have you explained the nature of your "personal experience". Damn good choice too, because you know how ridiculous it is and you know we'll tear it to pieces. And yet I'm sure you rationalise that away some how. Have you mastered double-think yet?

JimiTime

Zillah wrote: »

Then again, in a way I suppose it does scare me, though not in the way you imply. At least when a theist is a simple minded fool it is easy to explain it as mere naivety. But when you encounter a human being who's brain ordinarily functions very well and it turns out that even they can be pulled into preposterous bronze age nonsense? That's pretty scary. That can't be stupidity or ignorance. It has to be in the insanity family.

I wish you'd just come off the fence:D

checkyabadself

zoomtard wrote: »

I do not believe in Thor or the free market or Ganeesh or any number of other entities worshipped around the globe and the primary reason why I do not believe in them is because I have never encountered them myself, in my own personal experience, doing what they are claimed to be able to do.

I believe I have encountered the Trinitarian God in a fashion that validates claims about the Trinitarian God (note KingMob that this is still couched in belief and does not amount to "fact") and that is the primary reason why I am a believer in the existence and much more interestingly, immanence of this God. I continue to not believe any particular deity with whom I have not had a personal encounter, in a large part because I have not had a personal encounter with them. Those personal convictions are irrelevant for the purposes of this thread.

I started this thread to get an insight into the types of claims made like the ones you make above.
I am truly fascinated at how you have claimed to have met a supernatural deity in some capacity and yet deem those convictions "irrelevant" to the purposes of the thread.

With respect, I would love to be able to get you, or anyone else for that matter, to discuss details of a personal encounter in more detail. I am not out to ridicule or refute your claim. I`m more concerned with the phenomenon of some people having personal encounters/experiences with a god, in most cases with great specificity like your encounter and how I have not had any of these experiences or have ever met someone who claims to have had.

Does anyone have a link to someone/thread where someone claiming a personal encounter gives details?
I`m curious about this "argument from personal encounter", as it appears to me, to be an individual for whom the bible or conventional religions carry no weight (or no longer carries any weight) seeking an explanation for "the big questions", by means of wisful thinking and a confirmation bias, as mentioned previously.

pinksoir

I remember when I was about 18 I had an experience. It's difficult to explain, but it felt like an amazing drug, the feeling was all engulfing. I felt that no matter what, I was never alone, my mind's thoughts were always shared with another. I believed at the time it was God. Turns out it wasn't. True story.

EDIT: actually I sometimes get this weird sensation, pretty overpowering actually. A friend of mine had a brain hemorrhage and said the last thing she remembered was a smell of sulphur. Apparently this is a common occurance. Anyway, it freaked me out a bit and sometimes when I'm driving and I catch the slight smell of burning from the engine or a truck, I'll freak out and get a similar engulfing feeling, quite like that which I thought was God, only extremely discomforting as opposed to blissful. Pretty sure it's panic. Anyway, long story short, your brain does some crazy shit. It isn't God.

King Mob

I to had an odd experience, one morning I woke up to find I couldn't move, I looked up to see a flaming 666.

Was freaky.
But Sleep Paralysis always is.

pinksoir

I've never had sleep paralysis happily enough. The thought of waking up with an old hag sitting on my chest scares the crap out of me.

liamw

pinksoir wrote: »

I remember when I was about 18 I had an experience. It's difficult to explain, but it felt like an amazing drug, the feeling was all engulfing. I felt that no matter what, I was never alone, my mind's thoughts were always shared with another. I believed at the time it was God. Turns out it wasn't. True story.

I hear LSD allows you to communicate with God

Turtwig

zoomtard wrote: »

No paper has ever been published that empirically proves that empirical enquiry is the only source of knowledge.

Excuse me if I've misunderstood you but it seems you want to see proof that there is no such thing as non empirical inquiry. That's isn't the way the burden of proof works. To use the simple analogy. Using your reasoning in a court case would assume that the defendant is only innocent when you have proved beyond doubt that there isn't the slightest possible chance of him being guilty - Guilty until proved innocent.

Instead mate, you need to prove to us that there exists other valid and reliable methods of scientific inquiry other than Empiricism. (We don't have to prove any negatives to you.) As yet no such method has been found. It certainly doesn't mean one doesn't exist but it does mean that all we can do is speculate. In which case the inquiry method of sniffing cows flatulence in the hope of getting enlightened is on the same level as every other possible candidate. While it may sound bizarre and counter intuitive who said reality must be logical to us? Cow farts all the way down.

Beruthiel

I recall waking up one night because I was 100% sure something touched my cheek. So strong was the feeling that I jumped out of bed.

Goats cheese.
Damn tasty. But I don't recommend eating it before bed.
The dreams can be vivid.

pinksoir

Actually, that particular experience just occurred. No drugs that time. I take melatonin to help me sleep sometimes. You can buy it in pill form. If someone worked out what chemicals the brain produces to stimulate 'god' experiences, I'd buy a pack for a dollar.

pinksoir

Beruthiel wrote: »

I recall waking up one night because I was 100% sure something touched my cheek. So strong was the feeling that I jumped out of bed.

Goats cheese.
Damn tasty. But I don't recommend eating it before bed.
The dreams can be vivid.

Yah. Cheese is not advisable before bed...

sonicthebadger*

strobe wrote: »

Is it not Antiskeptic?

He hasn't posted a one word response to an intelligent post (ie. Source?) yet, so I doubt this guy is anti-skeptic.

Also his manner of discussion lacks the smugness.

liamw

pinksoir wrote: »

Actually, that particular experience just occurred. No drugs that time. I take melatonin to help me sleep sometimes. You can buy it in pill form. If someone worked out what chemicals the brain produces to stimulate 'god' experiences, I'd buy a pack for a dollar.

"At Johns Hopkins University, research suggests that chemicals that act on the serotonin system trigger mystical experiences that are life-altering."

Check this out:
http://ww.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=110997741

Zillah

sonicthebadger* wrote: »

Also his manner of discussion lacks the smugness.

Really?

strobe

strobe wrote: »

Is it not Antiskeptic?

No he's excelsior

sonicthebadger*

Zillah wrote: »

Really?

Sorry, lacks The Smugness.

Dades

Folks, just assume zoomtard is zoomtard.

liamw

antiskeptic and zoomtard's argument look like this in summary:
1. Science at it's root is based on a set of assumptions, and therefore cannot claim truth about reality.
2. Therefore, belief in the existence of a magical sky fairy based on a book from bronze age mythology, is just as valid.

Am I misinterpreting the argument?

zoomtard

zoomtard wrote: »

And Robin, I never said I was an atheist. I simply accepted a point you often used to make to me before the great Boards.ie crash (back when I still had access to the "Excelsior" username) that by believing in the Trinity I am implicitly believing in the non-validity of countless gods.

Dades wrote: »

Folks, just assume zoomtard is zoomtard.

Pace2008

checkyabadself wrote: »

I agree with you, but my point was that these people genuinely dont seem to be lying or BS-ing. They seem convinced and it`s that eh...logic, that I`m curious about.
Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris dont really seem to touch on it.

Here's a video of Dawkins addressing a member of the public who's claiming personal experience as evidence of God's existence:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKGtcVoBhBQ

JimiTime

Pace2008 wrote: »

Here's a video of Dawkins addressing a member of the public who's claiming personal experience as evidence of God's existence:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKGtcVoBhBQ

A fair answer tbh, based on Dawkins personal experiences. If one is truly atheist, then they must assume that someone claiming a personal experience is having some sort of episode. Thats not to say he's right, but its completely understandable. Its certainly how I think I'd be if I truly believed that there was nothing beyond this world. As Dawkins demonstrates himself, personal experience is one of the most affirming things.

sink

JimiTime wrote: »

A fair answer tbh, based on Dawkins personal experiences. If one is truly atheist, then they must assume that someone claiming a personal experience is having some sort of episode. Thats not to say he's right, but its completely understandable. Its certainly how I think I'd be if I truly believed that there was nothing beyond this world. As Dawkins demonstrates himself, personal experience is one of the most affirming things.

In Dawkin's case he's not claiming any knowledge of what lies beyond. He's simply claiming no-one else can possibly know and anyone who claims so, appears indeterminable from a state of delusion.

On a scale of probability the difference between scenario 1 'personal communication with a supernatural force, creator of the entire universe' and scenario 2 'suffering common delusion', is so vast that without further evidence the only rational course is to entirely discount scenario 1.

JimiTime

sink wrote: »

In Dawkin's case he's not claiming any knowledge of what lies beyond.

I know, and from his perspective\experiences there is nothing to suggest that there is anything.

He's simply claiming no-one else can possibly know and anyone who claims so, appears indeterminable from a state of delusion.

Indeed. Due to his experiences, and personal affirmation, it seems quite logical to draw Dawkins conclusion.

On a scale of probability the difference between scenario 1 'personal communication with a supernatural force, creator of the entire universe' and scenario 2 'suffering common delusion', is so vast that without further evidence the only rational course is to entirely discount scenario 1.

Exactly. If someone is truly atheist, then how could they accept someone saying, 'I talk to God' as any kind of feesable evidence. File Under 'useless' as far as evidence outside of the self goes. Those who have no reason to believe such things occur, will obviously dismiss them. I mean, why wouldn't they? Dawkins personal perspective\experience affirms in him, that a person claiming such things are deluded. Again though, it doesn't follow that he is right, but I completely get where he and you guys are coming from. Thats not to say that a person shouldn't testify about a personal experience, but rather it is only a personal affirmation, and is pretty useless as evidence outside of the self. Those certain that there is nothing beyond this world, will logically conclude that there's either mental shenanigans, or lies going on until the day when they get more than, 'this happened to me'. I'm reminded ever so slightly of the apostle Thomas. He got personal testimonies from close friends, and didn't believe. It was only when it was affirmed in him personally, when he himself met the risen Christ and put his fingers in his wounds was he convinced. Personal experience is most powerful. It will affirm more in a person than 100 scientific studies. In isolation though, its feck all use in trying to convince someone else, who has had no such experience and believes such things don't happen for real. However, think of 10 people you trust wholeheartedly. I mean really trust. If they all give personal experiences about something, you'd likely perk up a bit more in attention. Now if that trust is indeed great, you may believe them, even if it means changing your own preconceptions. Or maybe, like Thomas, you will still say, 'No offence, but unless I see it, I aint buying it'.

sink

Is there something special about me? Am I too rational to able to suffer from hallucination and delusion? Why should I consider my own personal experience as worthy, when I discount all others?

I don't think you realise the degree to which sceptics discount personal experience. If I had a vision of Jesus in my living room talking to me, so long as I maintained my grip on reality I would consider it to be a hallucination.

Why is it that people only ever witness religious figures or have religious experiences of a religion they're familiar with, or the progenitor?

I've been brought up in the Christian faith, I had the bible read to me on a weekly basis between the ages of 4 and 18. I'm very familiar with the stories in the new testament and with Jesus Christ. If I was to hallucinate, out of all the religious figures in the world my subconscious would gravitate towards Jesus, as it it is he I am most familiar with. So a hallucination of Jesus would be unsurprising and readily explainable as would a hallucination of Homer Simpson, considering I am also very familiar with that fictional character.

What would give me pause for thought is if I were to witness a Religious figure I had no prior knowledge of, such as one of the Hindu gods. If their appearance matched that of record and they were to impart me with some special knowledge which I could later verify, I would be bowled over. That would could not be easily explained as a simple hallucination and I would have to concede that something else was involved.

I can't rely upon even my own personal experience. I am human and I suffer all the flaws that fellow humans suffer. I discount my own personal anecdotes and my own musings in favour of scientific research, which has mechanisms to separate out the facts and which is thoroughly scrutinised by well studied experts in the field.

I recently watched a documentary on the Anti-vaccination movement in the States. It is a really good example of how trusting personal experience can lead to mistaken assumptions and can have serious consequences. They interviewed many of the movements leaders including Jenny McCarthy and they were all utterly convinced that the MMR vaccine caused autism through witnessing their child be vaccinated and subsequently developing autism. Their own personal experience corroborated with a number of others and they reasonably concluded that the vaccination was the cause.

It didn't matter that epidemiological studies showed that the rates of children developing autism did not differ between those who had the vaccination and those that did not. Their personal experience trumped all other evidence, leading to tragic consequence.

In the documentary there was a family interviewed whose baby contracted whooping cough. The baby was not vaccinated due to being too young. School friends of the child's brother were not vaccinated due to their parents unfounded fear of vaccines. Those school children contracted it and before symptoms showed they passed it to the newborn when they visited the house. The child suffered in agony and almost died of a preventable illness due to someone placing personal experience above scientific evidence.

Forgot to mention that the aforementioned parents received hate mail an violent threats from those within the anti-vaccination movement for speaking out against their nonsense. It's amazing how far people will go to protect their own deeply held personal beliefs.

Here's the documentaries website if anyone's interested.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/vaccines/

liamw

sink wrote: »

What would give me pause for thought is if I were to witness a Religious figure I had no prior knowledge of, such as one of the Hindu gods. If their appearance matched that of record and they were to impart me with some special knowledge which I could later verify, I would be bowled over. That would could not be easily explained as a simple hallucination and I would have to concede that something else was involved.

That's exactly right. These so-called spiritual experiences or personal experiences from people of different cultures and religions all over the world always just *happen* to be with the entity through which they are indoctrinated with growing up. Coincidence?

JimiTime

sink wrote: »

Is there something special about me? Am I too rational to able to suffer from hallucination and delusion? Why should I consider my own personal experience as worthy, when I discount all others?

Well, I think an answer there is obvious. 'Because its personal to YOU'. As I have said in the last two posts, someone elses PERSONAL experience is feck all use to anyone but that person. Add to that, your own personal worldview, then its obvious that anyone claiming supernatural encounters is not, and unless there is more than 'This is what I saw', its useless to YOU. You, justifiably, discount others personal experience claims, because they are nothing more than someone telling you 'this is what happened to me'.

I don't think you realise the degree to which sceptics discount personal experience.

I think I do, and I completely understand it.

If I had a vision of Jesus in my living room talking to me, so long as I maintained my grip on reality I would consider it to be a hallucination.

And in such an occasion where there is a degree of ambiguity, I think you'd be right. If it happened to me, I'd want to test it. I'd want to know what happened. I'd be more open minded of course, and not just dismiss it as 'I hallucinated', as my worldview doesn't limit me to the natural world. Be it a hallucination or otherwise, it would be a serious incident and I'd want to know what happened. For the sake of my mental health or my spiritual health depending on what actually happened.

Why is it that people only ever witness religious figures or have religious experiences of a religion they're familiar with, or the progenitor?

Because most claims are bogus maybe. Thats how I see it. As I said, personal experience does little for things outside of the self.

I've been brought up in the Christian faith, I had the bible read to me on a weekly basis between the ages of 4 and 18. I'm very familiar with the stories in the new testament and with Jesus Christ. If I was to hallucinate, out of all the religious figures in the world my subconscious would gravitate towards Jesus, as it it is he I am most familiar with. So a hallucination of Jesus would be unsurprising and readily explainable as would a hallucination of Homer Simpson, considering I am also very familiar with that fictional character.

What would give me pause for thought is if I were to witness a Religious figure I had no prior knowledge of, such as one of the Hindu gods. If their appearance matched that of record and they were to impart me with some special knowledge which I could later verify, I would be bowled over. That would could not be easily explained as a simple hallucination and I would have to concede that something else was involved.

I know what you're saying. Joe Coleman claiming to see Mary. She happens to look exactly like the RCC's staues etc. However, this idea that you cannot be familiar with a charachter for you to take notice is shaky logic. That basically says, if there is a supernatural world, you are handicapped by being born into a society which thought you about The Living God, as it would only be if a Hindu Image appeared etc you'd take note. As I mentioned earlier, rather than the vision meaning anything of itself, I'd want evidence from the vision to show who they were. Some isolated ambiguous, 'I seen Jesus at the end of my bed, and I felt peace' etc stories, are useless. If I seen such a thing, it would be useless to me too, and I believe in Jesus.

I'd raise the case here of the apostle Paul. A man who DIDN'T have an image of Jesus. However Jesus appeared to him on the road to Damascus and he 'conversed' with him. Also, the people with him heard sound but did not see what Paul did. He was then left blind, and was told to go to Ananias who would take this blindness away. Meanwhile, Ananias had a revelation to go to Paul (Who was called Saul at the time) and heal his blindness.

Now THAT is an experience! No ambiguity. No 'I just had a feeling' etc.

So to conclude, if I had a vision, I'd want it to be on that kind of scale, to show me its more than hallucination, bias or any other REASONABLE alternative.

I can't rely upon even my own personal experience. I am human and I suffer all the flaws that fellow humans suffer. I discount my own personal anecdotes and my own musings in favour of scientific research, which has mechanisms to separate out the facts and which is thoroughly scrutinised by well studied experts in the field.

I'm reminded of Peter Ustinovs famous quote: 'If the world should happen to blow itself up, the last audible voice will be that of an expert saying that it can't be done.'

If I had an experience such as Pauls, I can assure you, I wouldn't give a toss about research and experts. Though, if I had some vague, 'feeling' and ghosty figure 'vision', then I'd likely be right with you.

Waking-Dreams

I'd raise the case here of the apostle Paul. A man who DIDN'T have an image of Jesus. However Jesus appeared to him on the road to Damascus and he 'conversed' with him. Also, the people with him heard sound but did not see what Paul did. He was then left blind, and was told to go to Ananias who would take this blindness away. Meanwhile, Ananias had a revelation to go to Paul (Who was called Saul at the time) and heal his blindness.

Now THAT is an experience! No ambiguity. No 'I just had a feeling' etc.

Where are you getting this story from again? Ah yes, from a book written by goat herders, right? It's just not a great example, although I can understand why you might like to use it. However, I don't think you've countered much of what sink said.

King Mob

JimiTime wrote: »

I'd raise the case here of the apostle Paul. A man who DIDN'T have an image of Jesus. However Jesus appeared to him on the road to Damascus and he 'conversed' with him. Also, the people with him heard sound but did not see what Paul did. He was then left blind, and was told to go to Ananias who would take this blindness away. Meanwhile, Ananias had a revelation to go to Paul (Who was called Saul at the time) and heal his blindness.

Now THAT is an experience! No ambiguity. No 'I just had a feeling' etc.

Or what about the case of the lame doctor, Donald Blake who when trapped in a cave happened upon a rather ordinary walking stick.
However when he pounded the stick against the walls of the cave in a fit of rage, he found himself confronted with a vision of the Norse Allfather, Odin. (Who he of course wouldn't have had an image of.)
Odin then granted Dr. Blake the power of Asgard and he became the Mighty Thor.

I'd call that an experience too.

JimiTime

JimiTime wrote: »

I'd raise the case here of the apostle Paul. A man who DIDN'T have an image of Jesus. However Jesus appeared to him on the road to Damascus and he 'conversed' with him.

Wasn't this after he fell off his horse and hit his head :pac:

Nemi

liamw wrote: »

antiskeptic and zoomtard's argument look like this in summary:
1. Science at it's root is based on a set of assumptions, and therefore cannot claim truth about reality.
2. Therefore, belief in the existence of a magical sky fairy based on a book from bronze age mythology, is just as valid.

Am I misinterpreting the argument?

That's an acceptable summary, but I think what needs to be included is our implicit assumption that past observations offer a reasonable basis for future predictions. There's no particular reason why that should be the case. So far, it seems to be a reasonable assumption for many purposes. But there is an element of the magical sky fairy in any argument.

sink wrote: »

It didn't matter that epidemiological studies showed that the rates of children developing autism did not differ between those who had the vaccination and those that did not. Their personal experience trumped all other evidence, leading to tragic consequence.

I think this is a different use of the phrase 'personal experience'. In that vaccines case, we are talking about facts that we can all see. We can each establish that x number of children who received the vaccine and y number who did not receive the vaccine, all developed autism. We can apply techniques to that data to establish if this was different to what would be expected by pure chance. But that's not particularly relevant to religious experiences.

But, as I understand it, the kind of 'personal experience' we're talking about here is where someone experiences something that cannot be established by anyone else. We can establish if an individual possesses the characteristics that would lead us to say they are autistic. But none of us can independently verify if the person in that video actually has personally interacted with Jesus in the manner he claims.

Its really quite a different question to the vaccines one, which I think has more relevance to discussions about the extent to which statistics can establish truth. Everyone will agree that x number of children who received the vaccine developed autism. The disagreement is just over whether any significance should be attached to that fact. But in the religious argument, its more like a disagreement over whether any of the children are really autistic.

JimiTime

King Mob wrote: »

Or what about the case of the lame doctor, Donald Blake who when trapped in a cave happened upon a rather ordinary walking stick.
However when he pounded the stick against the walls of the cave in a fit of rage, he found himself confronted with a vision of the Norse Allfather, Odin. (Who he of course wouldn't have had an image of.)
Odin then granted Dr. Blake the power of Asgard and he became the Mighty Thor.

I'd call that an experience too.

So would I. No wishy washy, 'I had a feeling'. I would expect anyone who had such an experience, or indeed anyone who had a road to damascus experience to know it was more than hallucination.

roosh

checkyabadself wrote: »

Having heard claims like this today and quite a few more recently, I`m interested in the psychology behind making claims that "I personally have had it proven to me that god exists by experience" which are often kept private.

It seems strange that some people, smugly claim to be privvy to something that the rest of even their fellow believers are not. I`m intrigued by this train of thought that I`m noticing of late and am curious as to whether there`s some further reading on the subject ?

If anyone has a book/link to check out it`d be great.

Thanks,
Will.

hey checkya., this post is pretty long, but hopefully it is comprehensive. It also covers the basic points of one of the posts, from the below linked discussion on the nature of knowledge

here is a link to a discussion in the philosophy forum about the nature of knowledge, if you fancy joining in.

Can we know anything?
The question of how we can know anything, not mention, know whether there is God or not, is not a straight forward one.

It can be contended, that the only manner in which we can acquire knowledge, including that of the existence of God, is through direct personal experience.

This is often questioned on the basis that we cannot rely on our experiences, for a number of reasons, the most often cited is that our senses are fallible, or that we could be living in the matrix, be brains in a vat, be living in Plato's Cave, etc.

The problem this gives rise to, is that the nature of human existence is experiential, and if one cannot rely on their senses with regard to knowing God, then one cannot rely on their senses with regard to scientific enquiry.

It is [often] assumed, that this problem is circumnavigated through the peer review process, however that is to commit what could potentially be a logical fallacy. I'm not sure if it is one, or if there is a name, but we can refer to it as the fallacy of consensus of untrustworthy individuals.

This would be where no individual can trust their own experience, but it is assumed that if a group of individuals (none of whom can be trusted) agree on a contention, that there is increased validity in the contention.

The problem is, that a group of scientist could verify a hypothesis, but still not know whether they are living in the matrix or not. The fact that all of them verify the claim, does not circumnavigate this potential fact, and therefore does not increase the validity of the claim.

This is particularly relevant when it comes to the existence of God, because verifying the existence of anything is contingent with knowing reality - as reality is the state of things as they actually exist.



Of course, this does not mean that a person can know God through personal experience, as they too suffer the limitations of potentially living in the matrix, and not necessarily being able to trust their experience. what it does mean is that, if we cannot trust our senses because we could be living in the matrix, then the claim that there is no scientific evidence to support the existence of God is a moot point, because science could not test reality, and therefore could have no say in the existence of God. Again, this does not lend credence to the belief in God, but removes the ability for science to claim any authority on the existence of God.

This makes the contention, that because there is no scientific evidence to verify that God exists, then believing in God is irrational, an irrational claim in itself.



Think inside the vat
If we presume that we are in fact living in the matrix, or are brains in a vat, then we are left with the question Descartes was pondering, what can we possibly know for sure and for certain?

Descartes believed that "I am thinking, therefore I exist", however, if we draw on Buddhist philosophy, and practice, we can examine the nature of the "I" that appparently does the thinking. This reveals that the "I" does not think, the "I" is the thought. We can take the "I" to refer to "the thinker", but we can assume very little about the thinker. Even our perception of our human bodies, could be the result of the computer generated world, of the matrix/brain in a vat. So we cannot really know who "the thinker" is.

What we can know however, is that there is experience. From this experience we can know that there is, what is referred to as "existence", and so on from there.

The question then, how can we know there is experience? This is only knowable through our own, direct personal experience. I cannot know whether, or not, I am a sentient (experiencing) being, and you cannot know whether, or not, I am a sentient being. Each of us can only know it through our own, personal experience.

So, personal experience is the nature of existence, regardless of whether we exist in the matrix, a vat, or in reality, and from there everything else flows, and can only be known through personal experience.




What is God?
Once we accept our lot, as potentially being brains in a vat, and realising that it is only through personal experience that we can know anything, we can ask the question of whether we understand the concept of God or not.

If there is any residual, sub-conscious percption of God as a "magic man in the sky", or even a "bieng" outside of ourselves, outside of our [perceived] universe, then there is a good chance we have misunderstood the concept.

In order to interpret the concept meaningfully, it must be done so in the context, within which it was originally understood, or preached about. That context is spirituality, which is focused on examination of "the self", often referred to as "the soul", and the examination of the nature of reality.

roosh

that is not to say, that everyone who claims to have experienced God, actually has. people can of course lie. whether or not a person accepts anothers account is a matter of belief, just as a person chooses to believe the scientific evidence they have not verified for themselves.

indeed, there may be more reason to have faith in science, than there is to have faith in someone who claims to have experienced God, either way, both are just varying degrees of faith.

Nemi

JimiTime wrote: »

I would expect anyone who had such an experience, or indeed anyone who had a road to damascus experience to know it was more than hallucination.

Why? How would a hallucination of a life-changing meeting with the risen Jesus be different to an actual life-changing meeting with the risen Jesus?

I'd just hate to really meet the guy, and not know how to tell it was actually him.

Nemi

mangaroosh wrote: »

This would be where no individual can trust their own experience, but it is assumed that if a group of individuals (none of whom can be trusted) agree on a contention, that there is increased validity in the contention.

The problem is, that a group of scientist could verify a hypothesis, but still not know whether they are living in the matrix or not. The fact that all of them verify the claim, does not circumnavigate this potential fact, and therefore does not increase the validity of the claim.

Two thoughts occur to me. Presumably, if a group can independently report a certain thing, its as good as it gets. Obviously, we could all be reporting the same illusion. But if we all see it, it suggests we are all seeing something.

On the other hand, the personal experience of god is, of its nature, something that we cannot share. Several people might independently report that they feel close to god when praying. But none of them can inspect the feeling of closeness of another.

I suppose what I'm trying to say is there are two kinds of things in play here. There are the things that the group can seem to share a common, external, experience of, and things that each member of the group can only experience personally. The religous feelings seem to belong to the second category.

Morbert

What we can know however, is that there is experience. From this experience we can know that there is, what is referred to as "existence", and so on from there.

I could put on my nihilist hat and argue that we cannot even say experience exists, as we cannot prove that even to ourselves. But even if we accept that experience exists, how would we move from there to knowing whether or not God exists. Experiencing God would only tell us that the "experience of God existing" exists.

roosh

Nemi wrote: »

Two thoughts occur to me. Presumably, if a group can independently report a certain thing, its as good as it gets. Obviously, we could all be reporting the same illusion. But if we all see it, it suggests we are all seeing something.

On the other hand, the personal experience of god is, of its nature, something that we cannot share. Several people might independently report that they feel close to god when praying. But none of them can inspect the feeling of closeness of another.

I suppose what I'm trying to say is there are two kinds of things in play here. There are the things that the group can seem to share a common, external, experience of, and things that each member of the group can only experience personally. The religous feelings seem to belong to the second category.

The problem posed by the brain in a vat and matrix - and Plato's cave, I think - is that we cannot know that there is an external world. It could all perhaps be a computer generated illusion. Even the "others" who independently report seeing something, we cannot know if they exist, or are just computer simulations, so we cannot say that there is consensus. We can however choose to believe that they exist, and believe in the consensus. This of course is a matter of belief and faith.

The primary thing that we can know, is that there is, what is referred to as experience, which we can only know by virtue of "our" experiencing it. We also cannot make any assumptions about who or what we are i.e. we cannot assume anything about, what was in Descartes case "the thinker", but in our case the "experiencer".

You are right in saying that there are things that the group can seem to share a common, external experience of, the issue however, is that we cannot assume that the group exists, or that there is a common external experience. What we are left with is the only thing that we can know, and that is what members of the group experience personally i.e. what we experience for "ourselves".

King Mob

JimiTime wrote: »

So would I. No wishy washy, 'I had a feeling'. I would expect anyone who had such an experience, or indeed anyone who had a road to damascus experience to know it was more than hallucination.

Unfortunately both these examples are fictional anecdotes....

So what's your opinion of alien abductees?
They claim to have experiences equal to the level of the story of Paul or the origin of Thor.

roosh

Morbert wrote: »

I could put on my nihilist hat and argue that we cannot even say experience exists, as we cannot prove that even to ourselves. But even if we accept that experience exists, how would we move from there to knowing whether or not God exists. Experiencing God would only tell us that the "experience of God existing" exists.

You are correct to a degree, we cannot say that experience exists, what we can say, is that there is what is referred to as experience. The issue is that experience is, as such, beyond conceptual thought, so the word experience, is not experience itself.

The issue of proving experience to oneself is easily resolved, as the state of what is referred to as experience, is proof of the existence of what is referred to as experience.

Simply put, the fact that one experiences is proof that there is experience.


To say that God exists, is itself a conceptualisation of a potentially real experience, and could perhaps be misleading. It might be more accurate to say, that what is referred to as God exists - this is a claim as opposed to a statement of fact.

If we experience what is referred to as God, then the experience, of what is referred to as God, exists.

If the experience, of what is referred to as God exists, and we have experienced it, then we have experienced what is referred to as God.

JimiTime

Nemi wrote: »

Why? How would a hallucination of a life-changing meeting with the risen Jesus be different to an actual life-changing meeting with the risen Jesus?

I'd just hate to really meet the guy, and not know how to tell it was actually him.

I have detailed what happened to Paul. It was more than a meeting. He was blinded, given a message to go to Ananias. Meanwhile, Ananias was given a revelation to heal Pauls blindness. Paul goes to Ananias, who heals his blindness.

Now if this happened to you, you can still just write it off as hallucination, but I suppose you would then not have gone to Ananias, and would still be blind:)

Again though, judging by your post above, you've probably only breezed through my posts and missed the jist of my point. I do it myself at times, but they are still there if you want to give them a proper read:)