People claiming "personal" surety of gods existance.

Owen

People like this worry me. We had a poster on here who firmly believed his wife was having dialogue with Jesus - as in full blown backwards and forwards conversations. I know of a guy in Cork who goes to prayer groups, where they openly discuss how they see Jesus and Mary in their everyday lives. The conversations were bizarre - "Jesus came into my kitchen this morning" ... "What did you say to our Lord?" - "I asked him how his Mother was".

Morbert

mangaroosh wrote: »

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.

How do we show that "the state of what is referred to as experience" exists?

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

"One experiences" implies that one exists does it not? If we do not have proof that one exists, then we do not have proof that one experiences, and hence, we do not have 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.

No argument here, provided that we only ever claim that "the experience of what is referred to as God" exists.

JimiTime

King Mob wrote: »

Unfortunately both these examples are fictional anecdotes....

Inconsaquential to the point.

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.

Like any claim, I put it to scrutiny. Again, I've covered it if you read my posts properly, as it seems you've just skimmed through them maybe with a preconception of what someone like me might say or think.

King Mob

JimiTime wrote: »

Inconsaquential to the point.

Not really, if you can't actually show a solid example of anyone having such an experience.

JimiTime wrote: »

Like any claim, I put it to scrutiny. Again, I've covered it if you read my posts properly, as it seems you've just skimmed through them maybe with a preconception of what someone like me might say or think.

Would you point out where exactly and I'll get back to you?

JimiTime

King Mob wrote: »

Not really, if you can't actually show a solid example of anyone having such an experience.

You'd be wrong about that, but I wont get into an arguement about it *shrugs*

Would you point out where exactly and I'll get back to you?

The posts are there to be read if you want to KM. If ye can't be @rsed to read them, I'm not going to spoonfeed ye:)

King Mob

JimiTime wrote: »

You'd be wrong about that, but I wont get into an arguement about it *shrugs*

Ah... ok.
I must be wrong if you declare it so and not want to explain why...

JimiTime wrote: »

The posts are there to be read if you want to KM. If ye can't be @rsed to read them, I'm not going to spoonfeed ye:)

I wasn't asking you to spoonfeed anything.
I was just wondering which posts you made specifically deal with that issue.
It's quicker than trawling through the thread then only to address a post you weren't talking about.

JimiTime

King Mob wrote: »

Ah... ok.
I must be wrong if you declare it so and not want to explain why...


I wasn't asking you to spoonfeed anything.
I was just wondering which posts you made specifically deal with that issue.
It's quicker than trawling through the thread then only to address a post you weren't talking about.

All my posts are on page 6. I think there's 3. If you want to ask me something on them, feel free.

roosh

Morbert wrote: »

How do we show that "the state of what is referred to as experience" exists?

It doesn't need to be shown, experiencing it is enough to know that it exists. If "you" do not experience, then you are, what is referred to as, a zombie.

I can only know that I experience, from my own experience of what is referred to as experience. I cannot know that you experience, but I choose to believe that you do.

You cannot know that I experience, however you can know if you experience, and you can choose to believe that I do, if you so wish.

The only way in which either of us can know that there is what is referred to as experience, is through our own, individual experience. I can't show you, and you can't show me, but we can know for ourselves.

Morbert wrote: »

"One experiences" implies that one exists does it not? If we do not have proof that one exists, then we do not have proof that one experiences, and hence, we do not have proof that there is experience.

Remember, that the primary thing that we can know, is that there is experience, The proof of experience is experience itself.

So we start from the point of experience and move forwards, as opposed to starting with "the one" and moving backwards.

To say that "one experiences" is to use the third person singular, to speak in general, or absolute terms. As their is experience, then one can be said to experience, without assuming the nature of "the one's" existence.

In other words, if there is experience, then there must be what is referred to as "an experiencer". Again, the nature of this experiencer is not implied.

Morbert wrote: »

No argument here, provided that we only ever claim that "the experience of what is referred to as God" exists.

It is possible to make claims other than, "the experience of what is referred to as God" exists, for example "the sky is blue. Equally, there are other potentiual claims that pertain to the existence of God.

It may be claimed that "the experience of what is referred to as God" exists, and by virtue of this [potential] fact, it would therefore be possible to experience "what is referred to as God" i.e. it would be possible to experience God. Therefore, someone could make the claim to having experienced God. This then, becomes subject to belief, namely a person can choose to believe or disbelieve the claimant, but they cannot possibly know if they have experienced God.

This however, does not mean that everyone who claims to have experienced God is telling the truth, they could of course be lying.

King Mob

JimiTime wrote: »

All my posts are on page 6. I think there's 3. If you want to ask me something on them, feel free.

None of those posts address my question about abductees.

Nemi

mangaroosh wrote: »

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".

I agree that to make any statement whatsoever requires us to make some assumptions. (I'm briefly reminded of the scene in Dark Star where they try to defuse a smart bomb by talking philosophy to it).

While its ultimately an arbitrary position, I am happy to start with an assumption that this reality essentially exists and others have an independent existence. But I accept that my reason for doing this is just my personal experience. My personal experience suggests that I'd be having far more fun if I really did control this reality.

It strikes me that a theist has to make two assumptions. Firstly, that this reality exists and, secondly, that a god is behind it all. There's no particular reason why two assumptions has to worse than one. But I do feel its necessary to observe that this difference exists.

Nemi

JimiTime wrote: »

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:)

Quite likely. I also put off appointments with the dentist.

For me, the key point in your example (just accepting the Bible account as accurate, for purposes of this discussion - but just be aware I'm not familiar with that actual story) is that Paul can point to an external witness. He doesn't have to say 'Jesus appeared to me, and blinded me for a while'. Ananias can corroborate that Jesus appeared to him also, and instructed him to cure the blindness.

But what you seemed to say in the post I queried that the individual would be able to personally judge whether an experience was real or not. I know you are also saying this personal experience will be useless to anyone else. Yet, in Paul's case, the involvement of Ananias seems to be what enables him to decide his experience was valid.

Which brings me right around again to thinking that there's no way an individual can ever judge if the experience was real.

JimiTime wrote: »

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:)

I've specifically read your earlier posts before making this one, and thanks for pointing them out to us.

goose2005

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.

Actually there is ambiguity.

Acts 9:7 "The men who were traveling with him stood speechless, for they heard the voice but could see no one."

Acts 22:9 "My companions saw the light but did not hear the voice of the one who spoke to me."

It's possible that he had sunstroke or something. Or a hallucination. Or that Paul made it all up, or that it was a confused account of Ananias removing a cataract ("something like a scale fell from his eye" - crude methods of cataract removal are recorded in 6th century BC). It's odd that you say he "DIDN'T have an image of Jesus" when he was very intimately acquainted with Christians and may even have seen images of Jesus. Now if Quetzalcoatl or Amaterasu had appeared to Paul, that would be something.

Morbert

mangaroosh wrote: »

It doesn't need to be shown, experiencing it is enough to know that it exists. If "you" do not experience, then you are, what is referred to as, a zombie.

I can only know that I experience, from my own experience of what is referred to as experience. I cannot know that you experience, but I choose to believe that you do.

You cannot know that I experience, however you can know if you experience, and you can choose to believe that I do, if you so wish.

The only way in which either of us can know that there is what is referred to as experience, is through our own, individual experience. I can't show you, and you can't show me, but we can know for ourselves.

For the record, I don't doubt that experiences exist. I am prefectly happy with that assumption. I am only highlighting the limitations of our ability to infer. It is a quirk of logic that we cannot prove (i.e. Infer that something is necessarily true) to ourselves that anything (including experiences) necessarily exists, even though we clearly do have experiences.

Remember, that the primary thing that we can know, is that there is experience, The proof of experience is experience itself.

I know I'm being mean, but anyway: While we can certainly have the condition P → P (If experience exists then experience exists) we can't prove that that experience actually exists. It is an unfortunate aspect of logic.

So we start from the point of experience and move forwards, as opposed to starting with "the one" and moving backwards.

To say that "one experiences" is to use the third person singular, to speak in general, or absolute terms. As their is experience, then one can be said to experience, without assuming the nature of "the one's" existence.

In other words, if there is experience, then there must be what is referred to as "an experiencer". Again, the nature of this experiencer is not implied.

The problem here is the word "experiences" implies things which are 'experienced' as opposed to entities in their own right. I.e. We have no proof that experiences need an experiencer, and we only believe as much because of the implicit assumptions in our language. It could be that the only thing that exists is "That which is referred to as experiences." and no experiencer.

It is possible to make claims other than, "the experience of what is referred to as God" exists, for example "the sky is blue. Equally, there are other potentiual claims that pertain to the existence of God.

It may be claimed that "the experience of what is referred to as God" exists, and by virtue of this [potential] fact, it would therefore be possible to experience "what is referred to as God" i.e. it would be possible to experience God. Therefore, someone could make the claim to having experienced God. This then, becomes subject to belief, namely a person can choose to believe or disbelieve the claimant, but they cannot possibly know if they have experienced God.

This however, does not mean that everyone who claims to have experienced God is telling the truth, they could of course be lying.

Yes, I agree that, once a syntax is established, we can make other claims. "The sky is blue" for example, is equivalent to "There exists an experience of a sky that is blue". But we must always keep this mapping in mind. So "I experience God" is equivalent to "There exists an experience of a God." If we ever claim "There exists something which is God, which is more than an experience." Then our certainty dies away. This is where, I believe, the majority of theologians would part ways with us.

robindch

goose2005 wrote: »

Now if Quetzalcoatl or Amaterasu had appeared to Paul, that would be something.

Or indeed, the other way around -- that Paul or Jesus or somebody else appeared to somebody completely unconnected with first-century Palestine, but produced the same story.

A certain well-known poster in The Other Forum said that this did happen, but that he couldn't remember where.

Which reminded me of the guy who was giving a lecture on General Relativity and started off by asking the lecture hall who understood it already. One guy up the back stuck up his hand, so the lecturer asked him to come down and give the lecture instead. So the guy went puce and said he couldn't, because he couldn't remember some of the details. The lecturer then exploded, saying "There are three in the universe who understand this -- God, Einstein and you. What the hell do you mean you've forgotten?!"

JimiTime

goose2005 wrote: »

Actually there is ambiguity.

Acts 9:7 "The men who were traveling with him stood speechless, for they heard the voice but could see no one."

Acts 22:9 "My companions saw the light but did not hear the voice of the one who spoke to me."

It's possible that he had sunstroke or something. Or a hallucination. Or that Paul made it all up, or that it was a confused account of Ananias removing a cataract ("something like a scale fell from his eye" - crude methods of cataract removal are recorded in 6th century BC). It's odd that you say he "DIDN'T have an image of Jesus" when he was very intimately acquainted with Christians and may even have seen images of Jesus. Now if Quetzalcoatl or Amaterasu had appeared to Paul, that would be something.

For feck sake guys, the story doesn't matter to the point! Scrutinise the story all you wish, but the point is nothing to do with Paul, but rather what can be a valid experience. Replace Paul with Clark Kent being visited by his Kryptonian father if you wish. Thats why the Thor story is just as valid to the point I made. Its nothing to do with biblical accuracy etc. It seems however that if anything relating to the bible is mentioned, some folk go on an anti-theism auto-pilot.

JimiTime

Nemi wrote: »

For me, the key point in your example (just accepting the Bible account as accurate, for purposes of this discussion - but just be aware I'm not familiar with that actual story) is that Paul can point to an external witness. He doesn't have to say 'Jesus appeared to me, and blinded me for a while'. Ananias can corroborate that Jesus appeared to him also, and instructed him to cure the blindness.

Its not about someone else corroborating, its about having something more than a 'vision'. In Pauls instance, he had the effects of the vision (blinded). A message (Go to Ananias), then Ananias coroborates and heals Paul.

Or in the Thor scenario, he's left with a magic Hammer etc.

Most 'Personal experiences' we get today are vague, 'I saw a figure and got a feeling' type of things. In some cases, you have Joe Coleman type of 'prophecies' which don't happen etc which straight away mean they can be discounted etc. These kind of things usually mean as little to me as a believer as they do to non-believers. In fact, they probably annoy me more in some cases, as the claims can sometimes undermine what I hold dear.

But what you seemed to say in the post I queried that the individual would be able to personally judge whether an experience was real or not. I know you are also saying this personal experience will be useless to anyone else. Yet, in Paul's case, the involvement of Ananias seems to be what enables him to decide his experience was valid.

My point would be that one should test such a 'vision'. There is another type of experience though, such as a life changing moment. Violent drug addict turns into cleancut pillar of society after feeling the strength to change after a spiritual experience etc. Those outside of the experience may dismiss any Godly involvement, but the person will have a personal affirmation of their change of heart.

The first kind of experience will usually have evidence outside of the self, like a prophecy or somesuch.

The second though will just be a testimony combined with the life change.

Which brings me right around again to thinking that there's no way an individual can ever judge if the experience was real.

I disagree. I think there could be many things. Make me know fluent hebrew. Give me a prophecy and watch it be fulfilled etc.

I've specifically read your earlier posts before making this one, and thanks for pointing them out to us.

And I'm delighted you seen that my Paul example had nothing to do with authenticity of the story etc. If only a few others could see as you do:)

JimiTime

King Mob wrote: »

None of those posts address my question about abductees.

Yes they do. All of them do. You can apply my point to ANY experience. If you don't see that, you either haven't read the posts, or have completely misread them.

Canis Lupus

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!

OT but I'm a more than a little amused at your god randomly blinding someone (never mind that surely god would have known Paul was about to be blinded and could have just prevented it in the first place) and then rather than just restore his sight and say sorry about that he's given a blind orienteering test and some other dude gets a message that he needs to find a Saul to cure him of his blindness.

/OT

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

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:)

You don't know any of that happened to Paul. You know he claimed it happened to him. To explain this naturally you don't need to explain the actual individual claims, you simply need to explain how Paul would end up recounting the story of them.

And that is easy, happens all the time, false memories are easy to produce.

It is like alien abductions. If you only have an account of an abduction you don't need to explain how someone was lifted 50 feet into the air by a bright light.

You only need to explain how someone would think they were.

Zombrex

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.

Dawkins view afaik isn't based on personal experience so that comment seems some what pointless.

If you met someone who claimed to levitate would you dismiss them because you personally have never experienced someone levitate?

Or would you dismiss them because the collected scientific experience of physics and biology has no process allowing a person to levitate but there are a ton of known processes explaining how someone could believe they had or how someone could fake it?

The implication from your post, if I'm following correctly, is if Dawkins experienced it he would believe it too.

I very much doubt he would.

He would want to know that what he thinks he experienced actually was what he experienced, and as such he would remove his own personal assessment from the equation because we all know personal assessment is a deeply flawed thing.

This is something I think some people, particularly religious people ,often refuse to do because they are arrogantly convinced of the perceptive ability of their own mind.

sonicthebadger*

Wicknight wrote: »

He would want to know that what he thinks he experienced actually was what he experienced, and as such he would remove his own personal assessment from the equation because we all know personal assessment is a deeply flawed thing.

QFT

magicbastarder

qft? quit ****ing talking? quite ****ing true? quod ferat temonstrandum?

Zombrex

magicbastarder wrote: »

qft? quit ****ing talking? quite ****ing true? quod ferat temonstrandum?

quoted for truth

as in this is a good statement, and I agree.

not to be confused with qftt: quit f**k that tree

roosh

Nemi wrote: »

I agree that to make any statement whatsoever requires us to make some assumptions. (I'm briefly reminded of the scene in Dark Star where they try to defuse a smart bomb by talking philosophy to it).

While its ultimately an arbitrary position, I am happy to start with an assumption that this reality essentially exists and others have an independent existence. But I accept that my reason for doing this is just my personal experience. My personal experience suggests that I'd be having far more fun if I really did control this reality.

It strikes me that a theist has to make two assumptions. Firstly, that this reality exists and, secondly, that a god is behind it all. There's no particular reason why two assumptions has to worse than one. But I do feel its necessary to observe that this difference exists.

A "theist" does not necessarily have to make any assumptions. A "theist" need only know that there is experience, and either serendipitously or through practice, experience what is referred to as God. Of course what is referred to as God, could be referred to as something else in other cultures, so experiencing what is referred to as God, could perhaps be culture dependent. That is without making any assumptions about the nature of any of the afore mentioned concepts.

It must be remembered, that the term God is simply a conceptualisation of something that is experienced.


With regard to the assumption about "this reality" that exists. Which reality is being referred to?

Zombrex

mangaroosh wrote: »

A "theist" does not necessarily have to make any assumptions. A "theist" need only know that there is experience, and either serendipitously or through practice, experience what is referred to as God. Of course what is referred to as God, could be referred to as something else in other cultures, so experiencing what is referred to as God, could perhaps be culture dependent. That is without making any assumptions about the nature of any of the afore mentioned concepts.

It must be remembered, that the term God is simply a conceptualisation of something that is experienced.


With regard to the assumption about "this reality" that exists. Which reality is being referred to?

"God" makes various assumptions about what is experienced, for example that it is a supernatural experience involving a powerful being external to the person.

If it was a trick of the mind caused by say chemicals, I doubt people would continue to call it "God".

Mark Hamill

mangaroosh wrote: »

A "theist" does not necessarily have to make any assumptions. A "theist" need only know that there is experience, and either serendipitously or through practice, experience what is referred to as God. Of course what is referred to as God, could be referred to as something else in other cultures, so experiencing what is referred to as God, could perhaps be culture dependent. That is without making any assumptions about the nature of any of the afore mentioned concepts.

It must be remembered, that the term God is simply a conceptualisation of something that is experienced.

A theist assumes that his/her experiences are infallible.

mangaroosh wrote: »

With regard to the assumption about "this reality" that exists. Which reality is being referred to?

How many realities do you know of?

Memnoch

mangaroosh wrote: »

A "theist" does not necessarily have to make any assumptions. A "theist" need only know that there is experience, and either serendipitously or through practice, experience what is referred to as God. Of course what is referred to as God, could be referred to as something else in other cultures, so experiencing what is referred to as God, could perhaps be culture dependent. That is without making any assumptions about the nature of any of the afore mentioned concepts.

It must be remembered, that the term God is simply a conceptualisation of something that is experienced.


With regard to the assumption about "this reality" that exists. Which reality is being referred to?

Except there is no set definition for the 'experience of god.' And so theists are free to take anything and equate it to "experiencing god," and since they seem to have little regard for the value of emperical evaluation there is little to distinguish their experience from that of a schizophrenic.

Or to put it another way, someone could see a leaf fall from a tree and define that as a personal experience that proves god exists. Which according to the arguments I've read in this thread is somehow of equal value as a truth* as the theory of gravity that allows us to put satellites in orbit.

Nemi

JimiTime wrote: »

Its not about someone else corroborating, its about having something more than a 'vision'.

I'd see the two things as being the same. The 'something more' is something that you can verify with another person. Say you woke convinced you'd been abducted by aliens. Your memory would seem more credible to yourself if your next door neighbour independently stated he'd had the same experience.

I'm probably not making my point well - but, for me, the contrast is between a completely internal experience and one that, in whatever way, can be shared by others. (I wouldn't labour the alien abduction point - I'm only trying to think of an example that includes something more than a single individual perceiving something.)

JimiTime wrote: »

There is another type of experience though, such as a life changing moment. Violent drug addict turns into cleancut pillar of society after feeling the strength to change after a spiritual experience etc. Those outside of the experience may dismiss any Godly involvement, but the person will have a personal affirmation of their change of heart.

That sounds fair enough. In a way, you could equate it to someone saying that going fishing (or whatever) keeps them sane. There is no real way of proving that the person is happy because they pursue a particular hobby. Its just a personal sense of happiness that the individual reports.

Nemi

mangaroosh wrote: »

It must be remembered, that the term God is simply a conceptualisation of something that is experienced.

I might be wrong, but I'd see that as an atheist view of god. I'm perfectly willing to believe that people experience something that they call god. But, as I understand it, theists would maintain that they are not just conceptualising something. They would maintain that it actually is a god. And many would claim that god to have features that are beyond human experience - all-knowing, all-powerful and so forth.

mangaroosh wrote: »

With regard to the assumption about "this reality" that exists. Which reality is being referred to?

I just mean this reality that I think exists. I think I've already said my assumption that it actually does exist is arbitrary.

DeBunny

zoomtard wrote: »

Oh lordie, what does a saint have to do to get these atheists to crack a smile?

zoomtard wrote: »

Ain't no way to make a Christian feel sh!te quite like having some jokes fall flat amongst his new internet atheist friends.

Aaw. If it's any consolation to you, you've had me in stitches.

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

Dawkins view afaik isn't based on personal experience so that comment seems some what pointless.

If you met someone who claimed to levitate would you dismiss them because you personally have never experienced someone levitate?

Or would you dismiss them because the collected scientific experience of physics and biology has no process allowing a person to levitate but there are a ton of known processes explaining how someone could believe they had or how someone could fake it?

I'd imagine, that before science existed I would have dismissed such claims also, as I would never have seen anyone fly, nor have experienced it myself. Science merely adds weight to the obvious in this incident.

The implication from your post, if I'm following correctly, is if Dawkins experienced it he would believe it too.

It depends on what 'it' is.

He would want to know that what he thinks he experienced actually was what he experienced, and as such he would remove his own personal assessment from the equation because we all know personal assessment is a deeply flawed thing.

Well, unless something happened, I'd simply say we don't know what dawkins would do. What we do know however, is that he currently writes other peoples testimony off, and justifiably so going on what most peoples 'experiences' seem to consist of.

This is something I think some people, particularly religious people ,often refuse to do because they are arrogantly convinced of the perceptive ability of their own mind.

There's nothing arrogant about trusting yourself. I think each 'experience' should be taken on merit. Being automatically dismissive I would think to be more 'arrogant', but tbh, I wouldn't use the word. The wisest course IMO, is to listen to the facts, and reveal its merits, or expose its flaws.

roosh

Morbert wrote: »

For the record, I don't doubt that experiences exist. I am prefectly happy with that assumption. I am only highlighting the limitations of our ability to infer. It is a quirk of logic that we cannot prove (i.e. Infer that something is necessarily true) to ourselves that anything (including experiences) necessarily exists, even though we clearly do have experiences.

This quirk of logic, the issue of being unable to prove anything to ourselves, or at least has more to do with the illusory nature of the self. Logic of course, is only as good as the assumptions upon which it is based, and the issue of proving something to ourselves is tied up with the assumption that there is a "self" to which something can be proven.

The problem is, that what we generally tend to think of as our "self", is based on conceptual ideas regarding our name, our age, our nationality,etc. Our concept of our "self" generally tends to be tied up in our belief system about who/what we are, and who or what reality is. The sense of self is equally dependent on seeing ourselves as being human beings, in human bodies. This of course, as science has shown, is an illusion. The human body is, made up of sub-atomic particles - which themselves could be made up of something else.

In short the concept of "the self", is a set of beliefs that we develop about our experiences, and "the self" is conceptual. Our true nature, which can only be experienced, is non-conceptual, and so does not rely on logic, which is conceptual, in order to be proven. It is, to use a conceptual term, axiomatic. What is referred to as experience, is proof that experience exists.

Morbert wrote: »

I know I'm being mean, but anyway: While we can certainly have the condition P → P (If experience exists then experience exists) we can't prove that that experience actually exists. It is an unfortunate aspect of logic.

Logic cannot be used to prove that anything exists, it can merely be used to create a belief of what should exist, if the assumptions X, Y and Z are true. Logic however is conceptual, experience is not, so experience cannot be conceptualised. It can be described conceptually, but the description of an experience is not the experiene itself.

It is the description of an experience that is subject to conceptual logic, and the concepts of true and false.

Again, however, experience is axiomatic, it only needs to be experienced to be known to exist. There is no requirement to prove that it logically exists. Logic can however flow from the fact that there is experience, and need not rely on potentially erroneous assumptions.

Morbert wrote: »

The problem here is the word "experiences" implies things which are 'experienced' as opposed to entities in their own right. I.e. We have no proof that experiences need an experiencer, and we only believe as much because of the implicit assumptions in our language. It could be that the only thing that exists is "That which is referred to as experiences." and no experiencer.

I would agree to a large extent with this, and this highlights the attempt to describe non-conceptual reality using conceptual terms. Even the term experience is somewhat unnecessary, as the word and the actual experience are themselves, not the same.

However, we try to use language to attempt to describe our experiences, the issue of course is that language is only descriptive, and no necessarily definitive, in the sense that the language use to describe the experience is not the experience - as already said, apologies for repeating.

Logic is of course based on language and is conceptual, and so is only a means for describing experience. The word "experiencer" is an attempt to describe whoever/whatever has the experience, and this is probably, in part based on the incorrect assumption of an independently existing self. "the self" is generally viewed as being the experiencer. "the self" however, is just an experience in itself, it is a thought experience.

Our logic tends to flow from this primary misperception/mis-assumption, so to communicate often requires adhering to this assumption.

As you say however, there may only be experience, and no experiencer. We can however, drop even these conception, and say that there is only what is referred to as experience. The actual experience of non-conceptual experience, is what is referred to as God. The issue is that the habitual nature of our minds means that we tend to "think over" this non-conceptual experience, and apply concepts and beliefs to it, as it arises.

Spirituality is concerned with becoming aware of the habitual nature of the mind, and it's tendency to conceptualise. The mind tends to be so busy, that thoughts and emotions are constantly arising, which obscure our experience of reality. Through practice and becoming aware of this habit we can develop a certain state of mind, which reduces ever more this habit, and cultivates a "clear" mind, and therby experience this non-conceptual reality.

Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed, were all spiritual practitioners, so this is the context that "their" God should be interpreted.

Morbert wrote: »

Yes, I agree that, once a syntax is established, we can make other claims. "The sky is blue" for example, is equivalent to "There exists an experience of a sky that is blue". But we must always keep this mapping in mind. So "I experience God" is equivalent to "There exists an experience of a God." If we ever claim "There exists something which is God, which is more than an experience." Then our certainty dies away. This is where, I believe, the majority of theologians would part ways with us.

The term God, is itself a concept, and an attempt to describe an experience, since everything is experiential. In order for something to be experienced, it must exist, as something which does not exist, cannot be experienced.

Therefore, if there exists an experience of what is referred to as God, what is referred to as God must exist, in order to be experience. As what is referred to as God is God, then God could be said to exist.

Mark Hamill

mangaroosh wrote: »

The term God, is itself a concept, and an attempt to describe an experience, since everything is experiential. In order for something to be experienced, it must exist, as something which does not exist, cannot be experienced.

Therefore, if there exists an experience of what is referred to as God, what is referred to as God must exist, in order to be experience. As what is referred to as God is God, then God could be said to exist.

That is the greatest load of boll*cks I have ever heard.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

I'd imagine, that before science existed I would have dismissed such claims also, as I would never have seen anyone fly, nor have experienced it myself. Science merely adds weight to the obvious in this incident.

But the point is that it would be some what foolish to dismiss something simply because you have not experienced it yourself, as it could simply be that your experience is limited.

JimiTime wrote: »

It depends on what 'it' is.

No actually it doesn't, that is the point.

Your post seems to be saying that if you have a mild revelation (ie you think you hear a voice) you would be cautious of that but if it was some sort of dramatic revelation, like Paul's, you would be more likely to accept that as genuine.

I wouldn't. I doubt any of the atheists here would, and I doubt Dawkins would.

We know the human brain can produce experiences and memories of fantastical events. It would be very foolish to accept something fantastical happened to you simply because you think it did. In fact the more dramatic, the more fantastical, the less likely I would be to accept my personal assessment and the more likely I would be to look for external verification.

JimiTime wrote: »

Well, unless something happened, I'd simply say we don't know what dawkins would do. What we do know however, is that he currently writes other peoples testimony off, and with good reason.

Yes but you seem to presenting a distorted view of why he writes other peoples testimony off.

From all of his writing on science and personal revelation I have no reason to see that he dismisses them simply because he himself has not experienced the same thing, or that he would accept them if he did experience them himself.

JimiTime wrote: »

There's nothing arrogant about trusting yourself.

Yes there is, it is arrogant to assume you are good at telling the difference between reality and a trick of the mind or memory, or determining purely on your own what has happened to you with no external evidence or reference points, particularly when we are surrounded by examples of people being easily tricked into believe some extra-ordinary things.

JimiTime wrote: »

I think each 'experience' should be taken on merit. Being automatically dismissive I would think to be more 'arrogant'

Depends on what you mean by automatically dismissive.

We know that people have delusions that often stretch to quite fantastical views of reality, such as believing they were in alien space ships, or in the clouds talking to Jesus.

We know these experiences can be produced through some rather basic brain chemistry, caused by various natural causes.

We know the human brain is prone to sorting information in a particular way that leads to the acceptance of ideas that suggest agency in nature.

We also know that there is no evidence apart for the recounting of personal experiences for any of these supernatural things that people claim to have experienced.

So why exactly would you not be severely skeptical to the point of dismissive of a supernatural claim a person puts forward with no support other than their own personal assessment of what they think happened to them?

If my laser measuring device got the measurements wrong hundreds of times I would throw it away because it is defective. I would no longer trust it as a device for accurate measurement. I wouldn't independently measure each measurement on the off chance it actually got the distance right. The human brain should not be trusted in these regards. It has been shown to be bad at this sort of thing more times than we can count.

I appreciate this presents a problem for religion, as the only thing you guys have going to support your beliefs is personal assessment of experience. But that is your problem, not the problem of those who dismiss you.

Our brains are ridiculously bad at this sort of thing, that doesn't change just because you want to believe.

robindch

mangaroosh wrote: »

Therefore, if there exists an experience of what is referred to as God, what is referred to as God must exist, in order to be experience. As what is referred to as God is God, then God could be said to exist.

And Allah exists too, since there are lots of people out there who have direct experience of him. But Allah and the christian deity can't co-exist, since they're both the sole creator deity. Therefore there must be a problem somewhere.

Demonstrationem mirabilem sane detexi, sed hanc postis exiguitas non caperet.

Dades

Mark Hamill wrote: »

That is the greatest load of boll*cks I have ever heard.

I was thinking about issuing a decorum warning then I read the post you were referring to. :pac:

Morbert

While I would like to get into a more detailed conversation, I have to unfortunately limit my time, so I will focus on this:

mangaroosh wrote: »

The term God, is itself a concept, and an attempt to describe an experience, since everything is experiential. In order for something to be experienced, it must exist, as something which does not exist, cannot be experienced.

Therefore, if there exists an experience of what is referred to as God, what is referred to as God must exist, in order to be experience. As what is referred to as God is God, then God could be said to exist.

What is the proof for the bit in bold? Why could it not be the case that the experience of something exists, even though the thing itself does not.

roosh

Wicknight wrote: »

"God" makes various assumptions about what is experienced, for example that it is a supernatural experience involving a powerful being external to the person.

Wicknight wrote: »

If it was a trick of the mind caused by say chemicals, I doubt people would continue to call it "God".

"God" does not necessarily make various assumptions, rather there are many various assumptions about what "God" refers to.


To suggest that it is a supernatural experience involving a powerful being, external to the person, is potentially correct, but there are a great many concepts contained in that statement, and they all carry a number of inherent assumptions.


It must be remembered that experience itself is supernatural.



To re-open an old discussion, the word Supernatural means "attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature" or "unnaturally or extraordinarily great".

I would suggest, that it is the former definition that we would be most interested in.

The condition "beyond the laws of nature", is as such a meaningless one, or at least "outside our jurisdiction". In order for us to be able to judge, or declare something to be "beyond the laws of nature", we must first know what all the laws of nature are. If we attempt to declare something as "beyond the laws of nature", without knowing all the laws, what we declare as supernatural could prove to be non-supernatural, with the understanding of a new law.

That of course could be immaterial, as something does not necessarily have to satisfy that condition, in order to be deemed supernatural. It has to satisfy that condition or the other condition stated, that is, it has to be:

attributable to some force beyond scientific understanding.

There are a perhaps two ways that this could be interpreted, 1) that it will forever be beyond scientific understanding, or 2) that it is beyond the understanding of contemporary science.

If we interpret experience under interpretation #2, then experience is attributable to some source beyond scientific understanding, as the source or cause of experience is not yet known. This would make consciousness, supernatural.

It might perhaps be argued that this is an incorrect interpretation, and that #1 above is how it should be interpreted, that is, that experience will forever remain beyond scientific understanding. It might then be argued, that the source of experience could one day be understood scientifically, and this would mean that it is not supernatural.


To interpret it thus, however, would be to rely on an assumption that we cannot make. We cannot assume that "scientific understanding" will, at some unknown point in the future, discover and understand the cause of experience, or what created experience.


This makes experience supernatural, up until such point as it is understood scientifically.

Wicknight wrote: »

If it was a trick of the mind caused by say chemicals, I doubt people would continue to call it "God".

Again, there are a number of assumptions contained in the above, not least that we are not brains in a vat, living in the matrix, etc. Another is that the nature of the human brain. To assert that the experience of God is attributable to electro-chemical impulses in the brain, is to ignore the fact that the nature of matter is not yet fully understood. What we perceive as the brain is, again, our perception of sub-atomic particles, which themselves could just be a perception of something else, vibrating strings perhaps, or a floating membrane. We cannot say as of yet.

Another assumption is to assume, that there would be no corresponding brain activity with the experience of what is referred to as God. If we work on the level of the relative, then, if God were an external entity, then an experience of this external entity would represent a stimulus, which would natarally elicit a response in the brain. Internal experiences also result in brain activity, so God does not necessarily have to be an external entity.

roosh

Mark Hamill wrote: »

A theist assumes that his/her experiences are infallible.

Everybodies experiences are infallible, as they are non-conceptual and not subject to such conceptions as fallible or infallibe. It is the beliefs that people form about their experiences, which are [potentially] fallible.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

How many realities do you know of?

How many realities are there?

roosh

Nemi wrote: »

I might be wrong, but I'd see that as an atheist view of god. I'm perfectly willing to believe that people experience something that they call god. But, as I understand it, theists would maintain that they are not just conceptualising something. They would maintain that it actually is a god. And many would claim that god to have features that are beyond human experience - all-knowing, all-powerful and so forth

It could well be described as an atheist view of God, but the nature of language must be remembered. Language and words are merely concepts, which attempt to describe our experience, and the "things" they describe are in actual fact, nameless. Just as our parents apply a label to us when we are born, our true nature is without name, it is beyond conceptualisation.

So what is referred to as God, can be referred to as many other things (some might say a delusion ), and indeed it is, it is referred to as Allah in Islam (as well as Allahs 98 other names), or Yaweh in Judaism, or whatever other names are applied to what it is that is referred to as God.

Equally terms such as omnipotent, omnipresent, etc. are conceptualisation of non-conceptual "things". What we refer to as knowledge, is actually a state of experience. The issue could be, that we are trying to understand terms like "all-knowing" according to our mistaken understanding of knowledge, with information, where we believe that we do not know all the information there is to know about the universe. The issue of course is that information is not knowledge, although information can be known. Knowledge is experiential.

To try and use a contemporary scientific theory - M theory - to illustrate. Firstly, we can work with what we know, and that is we know that there is experience. If we pretend that M theory is correct, purely for explanatory purposes. If it were to be correct, then the nature of all matter would be as a floating membrane, that includes what we perceive as ourselves, including our brains. As there is experience, then this floating membrane must be a sentient entity or being i.e. it must experience. Since the nature of our entire universe would be this experiencing "brane", and seeing as how knowledge is experiential, this "brane" could be said to be all-knowing, all-powerful and everywhere.

Nemi wrote: »

I just mean this reality that I think exists. I think I've already said my assumption that it actually does exist is arbitrary.

that is what we need to clarify, what reality is it, that you think exists? The issue could be that we are thinking of reality in an incorrect manner. We could be thinking of it in terms of the physical universe we see around us, but the further science delves, the more we realise that what we see, is not necessarily the way things are.

roosh

robindch wrote: »

And Allah exists too, since there are lots of people out there who have direct experience of him. But Allah and the christian deity can't co-exist, since they're both the sole creator deity. Therefore there must be a problem somewhere.

Demonstrationem mirabilem sane detexi, sed hanc postis exiguitas non caperet.

Allah and God are the same entity, Allah is simply an arabic (am I right in that) word for God. Jews, Christians, and Muslims all believe in the same God, they simply follow the teachings of different prophets.

gbee

There are two primary reasons IMO.

One is the person cannot disprove your opposite argument and withdraws.

Two: You will tend to find that the real faithful, the REAL believers tend not to engage in anything ... thus would not even post a comment on boards one way or the other.

Zombrex

mangaroosh wrote: »

To suggest that it is a supernatural experience involving a powerful being, external to the person, is potentially correct, but there are a great many concepts contained in that statement, and they all carry a number of inherent assumptions.

Yes but they all imply a particular thing, ie an all powerful supernatural creator deity. You wouldn't use "God" if you thought you were talking to a ghost or an evil spirit, or if you thought you were having a stroke.

mangaroosh wrote: »

To interpret it thus, however, would be to rely on an assumption that we cannot make. We cannot assume that "scientific understanding" will, at some unknown point in the future, discover and understand the cause of experience, or what created experience.

We don't need to. Science at the moment understands the cause of these experiences, or at least the most likely cause of them.

mangaroosh wrote: »

To assert that the experience of God is attributable to electro-chemical impulses in the brain, is to ignore the fact that the nature of matter is not yet fully understood.

No it isn't. The nature of matter is not relevant. Greater understanding of the nature of matter isn't going to change how a stroke causes the detachment of the inner voice so a person believes God is speaking to them.

A discovery into say the Higgs boson isn't going to cause that completely re-evaluated.

mangaroosh wrote: »

What we perceive as the brain is, again, our perception of sub-atomic particles, which themselves could just be a perception of something else, vibrating strings perhaps, or a floating membrane. We cannot say as of yet.

And we don't need to. We study the interactions of these particles. The underlying nature of them doesn't change this.

It is like observing a car going 50mph. Saying well we don't know what engine is in the car is irrelevant. Finding out it is a v8 engine or a v6 engine isn't going to change that it was going 50 mph.

We could all be strange energetic interactions on a 2D plane at the edge of the universe (holographic theory), that doesn't change chemical reactions in the brain causing feelings of religious experience.

mangaroosh wrote: »

Internal experiences also result in brain activity, so God does not necessarily have to be an external entity.

"God" is an English word meaning creator deity. That is, by definition, an entity rather than something of our imagination.

It is the difference between Harrison Ford and Han Solo

roosh

Morbert wrote: »

While I would like to get into a more detailed conversation, I have to unfortunately limit my time, so I will focus on this:



What is the proof for the bit in bold? Why could it not be the case that the experience of something exists, even though the thing itself does not.

If something does not exist, then it cannot be experienced.

If there is an experience of something, then whatever it is that is experienced, can be said to be existent.

The issue arises with the conceptualisation of the experience.

Mark Hamill

mangaroosh wrote: »

Everybodies experiences are infallible, as they are non-conceptual and not subject to such conceptions as fallible or infallibe. It is the beliefs that people form about their experiences, which are [potentially] fallible.

Apologies, I meant to say the theists think that their conceptualisations are infallible, ie what automatically assume that what they think has happened, has actually happened (in terms of personal revelation anyway).

mangaroosh wrote: »

How many realities are there?

One, I would imagine.

Zombrex

mangaroosh wrote: »

If something does not exist, then it cannot be experienced.

If there is an experience of something, then whatever it is that is experienced, can be said to be existent.

The issue arises with the conceptualisation of the experience.

Sort of, the issue comes with the disparity between the phenomena and the explanation for the phenomena.

The phenomena is you believe you are hearing a voice in the your head. The explanation for the phenomena is that God is speaking to you.

It is incorrect to say that you have experienced God. That is the explanation for what happened. And it is only one of many. An explanation must be supported with evidence.

roosh

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Apologies, I meant to say the theists think that their conceptualisations are infallible, ie what automatically assume that what they think has happened, has actually happened (in terms of personal revelation anyway).

I would be inclined to agree to a very large extent, with that. I do believe there are people who claim to have experienced God, but who have not really experienced.

A further issue is that experience can be fleeting. One can have an experience which lasts for a brief moment, and then is gone, and all that is left is conceptualisation.

A major issue, I believe, with regard to God, is our pre-conceived ideas of what God actually means. There is probably little doubt, that embedded in our sub-conscious mind is an image of the man in the sky, or at least a male entity existing outside of our universe, who we try to communicate with, by joining our hands to form the mike of some cosmic CB radio, and who we receive communication from through voices in our heads.

This is probably, largely, due to people who have only ever been familiar with the concepts, preaching about them. This could, in no small way, be due to the politicisation of religion as a means to control people, with prominent positions going to people interested in power as opposed to spirituality, and developing a realisation of what the concepts actually menat.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

One, I would imagine.

I would be inclined to agree. It is the nature of that reality that is relevant however.

roosh

Wicknight wrote: »

Sort of, the issue comes with the disparity between the phenomena and the explanation for the phenomena.

The phenomena is you believe you are hearing a voice in the your head. The explanation for the phenomena is that God is speaking to you.

It is incorrect to say that you have experienced God. That is the explanation for what happened. And it is only one of many. An explanation must be supported with evidence.

The voice, that I am allegedly hearing in my head is what is more commonly known as "the self". God is experienced when the voice is quietened, and there is no self.

It is "the self" that interprets the phenomena, and rationalises them. The self of course arises merely in the form of conceptual thoughts, about our experiences.

Morbert

mangaroosh wrote: »

If something does not exist, then it cannot be experienced.

If there is an experience of something, then whatever it is that is experienced, can be said to be existent.

The issue arises with the conceptualisation of the experience.

But you have still not established that the experience of A implies the existence of A. We have only established the rather trivial statement: The experience of A implies the existence of the experience of A, as well as its equally trivial contrapositive (If the experience of A does not exist, then there is no experience of A).

roosh

Wicknight wrote: »

Yes but they all imply a particular thing, ie an all powerful supernatural creator deity. You wouldn't use "God" if you thought you were talking to a ghost or an evil spirit, or if you thought you were having a stroke.



We don't need to. Science at the moment understands the cause of these experiences, or at least the most likely cause of them.

what is the source of all experience?

Wicknight wrote: »

No it isn't. The nature of matter is not relevant. Greater understanding of the nature of matter isn't going to change how a stroke causes the detachment of the inner voice so a person believes God is speaking to them.

A discovery into say the Higgs boson isn't going to cause that completely re-evaluated.


And we don't need to. We study the interactions of these particles. The underlying nature of them doesn't change this.


It is like observing a car going 50mph. Saying well we don't know what engine is in the car is irrelevant. Finding out it is a v8 engine or a v6 engine isn't going to change that it was going 50 mph.

We could all be strange energetic interactions on a 2D plane at the edge of the universe (holographic theory), that doesn't change chemical reactions in the brain causing feelings of religious experience.

the nature of matter may not be relevant, however the nature of reality is.

Wicknight wrote: »

"God" is an English word meaning creator deity. That is, by definition, an entity rather than something of our imagination.

It is the difference between Harrison Ford and Han Solo

While the word God may [roughly] mean the above, it is also a concept, developed and applied to something, as are the concepts "creator" and "deity". These concepts can have particular connotations, and give rise to certain mis-perceptions as to what they mean, or could mean, and therefore concepts that are explained using them, are equally subject to misperception.


This is the difference between what we think God is supposed to mean, and what God actually means.