How to Authentically Experience God

[Edwardo Piet]

as far as I'm concerned, the IDEA (because that's all it is) is still undefeated.

Well if its simply an idea...if an idea is all it is simply an idea - its got no substance or support attached to it all..then its undefeated by default until any evidence, any real support is provided at all...
We do not have to go about proving a negative here....you propose that God doesn't need evidence yet you don't give any evidence for how that's not just simply 'an idea'.

Where is your support? Who says God doesn't need evidence any less?
Sure you can't believe in God with evidence SO FAR at least....guess what? Because there ISN'T any evidence!

If evidence of God appeared would it just be ignored then? Yeah right.
But the point is that you need to provide evidence for that claim...we don't have to DISPROVE your completely unsupported claim.

Other things require evidence so why not God? Sure...you don't need evidence to BELIEVE in him...you can believe in him just on faith - the only reason you can't believe in him on evidence is because there isn't any evidence!
You can believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster on faith too you know...theoretically. There is no evidence so if you believe in the FSM you believe in it on "faith"....

But why SHOULDN'T the FSM, or God require evidence to believe more than anything else? Why treat God as a special case? And how is he any different to the FSM..?
Because its theoretically possible to believe in the FSM on "faith" just like God...and you 'can't' on evidence simply because....there isn't any evidence! If evidence turned up you could believe in God based on evidence THEN!

There is no evidence of God so you need to believe in God on 'faith'. There is ALSO no evidence of the FSM: so you need to believe in the FSM on 'faith' too.
BUT...as I said - that's only becasue there ISN'T any evidence of God or the FSM...if there was you COULD believe in them on evidence...

But why SHOULD you not require evidence for God? It would be the same for the FSM....should the FSM also be simply reasonable and rational to believe in on "faith" simply because there is no evidence so it CAN'T be believed on evidence?

I don't think faith is a good thing lol. Faith is the FSM, Zeus, the IPU and God....simply because there is no evidence lol. I mean see my sig....people believe in God not only in spite of the lack of evidence...but sometimes BECAUSE of the lack of evidence. Bad reason. Very irrational...

That's faith for you.

EvF

[fr0d0]

So what does the muslim experience? Is it your god, another form of your god, or another god?

Muslims experience a minor god.

You seem to have a belief in god that isn't mainstream christianity. Muslims experience a minor god? But it's actually god? Whatever happened to jesus being the one true god; all others being idols?

Throughout this reply to my post you seem to be agreeing with me, yet saying you don't. Very odd.

Allah is a minor god (small 'g'), one of those idols you mention.

Christianity and islam are by definition, mutually exclusive.

Even though they are both Abrahamic.

What are you saying? That because they're both abrahamic, they are not mutually exclusive? There mutually exclusive in that they worship different gods. To a muslim, a christian is an infidel; to a christian, a muslim is going to hell.

They are both mutually exclusive, they both have the same root *shrugs*

Christians follow the way of jesus, but muslims see jesus only as a prophet. They follow mohammed and allah. Both can't be true. It is either none or one. So why is yours right? What makes your 'personal experience' of god any more certain than a muslims?

Both are opposite, but the basic idea is the same. It's all just religion after all. & this is monotheistic religion, is what I meant.

You're not answering the question. The basic idea may be the same but again, they are mutually exclusive. What evidence there is to support a god applies to both religions. Now, don't avoid the question - what makes your personal experience of god any more certain than a muslims?

You seem to be adding questions. I'm certainly not trying to avoid them. Maybe you're only hearing what you want to hear.

My personal God works for me. Your personal belief works for you. We both have to think we are right or we wouldn't be being true to ourselves. Both of us think that we are correct. I, as a Christian allow complete freedom to others to think what they wish. I would hope that you do the same.

Or is christianity simply 'more real' to you? In that case, you're delusional.

throwaway comment > dustbin

Again, you are avoiding my questions. The least you could do is answer them with something. It was a valid comment for I have spoken and heard hundreds of christians say something along the lines of "it just seems more real to me".

Well that's a non statement from those people. I try to be completely rational and never make bland blanket statements like that. So therefore it isn't a valid comment, it's nonsense.

You've stepped away from reason and fact. You say you have faith, yet faith is just an admission that there is no evidence. If there is evidence of something, faith is impossible; its nonsensical.

Show me your logic, because to me it appears that you are bypassing your brain to come up with that.

So: faith, something we have to have if we have no proof, is something we have to have proof of? Are you really tagging your name to that?

Oh, c'mon. Faith is an admission that there is no evidence. Think about it. When there is evidence of something, we believe in it, simple. When there is no evidence of something, we use faith to believe in it.

Yay - Thoughtful agrees with me!

Currently christians all around the world including you keep making the claim that we don't need evidence to believe in god, yet if ever a shred of evidence of god is found, every single one of them would jump on it.

I don't make that claim. I make the claim the empirical evidence isn't possible. Very different.

That's a myth. Wishful thinking. A delusion. A strawman. It has equal merit to other ridiculous postulations of dragons, fairies, unicorns, spaghetti monsters, the easter bunny and santa claus.

You're complicating it. Faith is present when there is a lack of evidence. Simple as that.

Blimey I couldn't make it simpler. I've said the very same thing many times here already.

There is empirical evidence of the sun, hence we know the sun's there. No one says that they have faith the sun is there, or that we revolve around it, or that it wont rise in the morning.

So you don't NEED faith in the Sun, it's empirically provable.

You DO NEED faith in God, because he ISN'T EMPIRICALLY PROVABLE.

Thanks for illustrating my point.

I don't mind sharing.

The last stupid argument the religious have is 'faith'. If we were to argue with faith as satisfactory evidence, absolutely anything could be proven real.

You're the one that wants to argue with faith = fact. IT ISN'T.

What isn't? Faith doesn't = fact? Obviously. Which is my whole point about faith. Since it is not based on fact, why utilise it at all?

Because fact isn't everything there is. You have said that here a lot more than I have.

Go see my undefeated <oops, joke#2> thread on evidence where I explain the futility of that search.

Again another joke, highlighting that you aren't answering my questions.

Thanks for the insight, although I don't see your logic. I didn't mean that one actually, as far as I'm concerned, the IDEA (because that's all it is) is still undefeated.

Undefeated? Says whom? I suppose you do. But I hardly think anyone else would agree with you. And when I was reading it, you are doing the same thing you are doing here, avoiding questions with light jokes and misdirection.

You seem to LOL

I'm sorry you are unable to digress into the odd joke occasionally. I am trying to compensate for that.

The futility of the search for evidence of god? Sure. It means his not real. There is a futility in the search for the easter bunny, santa claus, unicorns, and so on. Why is the search for your god any less futile?

I don't know, you're the one doing the searching, you tell me!?!

This is exactly what I'm talking about. You know what I'm asking, but you're unable to provide a satisfactory answer so you misconstrue the question.

I'll rephrase myself: Since you think you've found god, can you please explain why your revelation of him is more valid than a child's belief in the easter bunny?

God is an incredibly simple and detailed deity with a lot of reasoned out purpose which adds up to enabling human beings to enjoy life more fully. The Easter Bunny is: "A rabbit of folklore depicted as delivering baskets of colored eggs to children at Easter." Ummm..

Acting on base human instinct isn't anti evolution. Denying our human nature is surely?

I'm not talking about human nature, I'm talking about maturity. People seek religion because it brings up feelings of protection and loss of ego that they felt as a young child. How is this productive? It's more like a bad habit. Just because we feel more comfortable doing something (IE religion), does not mean it's good for us.

I know what you said, no need to repeat yourself. See my answer.

Once again, your answer does not answer my question. Human nature is a very vague word. So unless you can define it, denying our 'human nature' could mean anything. What exactly is our human nature? And what exactly are our bad habits, our addictions, our temptations, etc? Are they simply part of our human nature too?

As I said, I'm talking about maturity. Why is it productive to return to the processes we used as small children? Isn't this just taking a step backwards, when we should be going forwards?

Full maturity is a return to basics. Like Picasso said: “It took me four years to paint like Raphael, but a lifetime to paint like a child”.
It is in no way regression, but indeed progression.

Human nature? If you're a christian, you must believe in some sort of original sin, you know, the reason jesus came to save you. If we're sinners, then why would our human nature be a good thing to follow? Our nature is sinful, and destructive, according to the bible. Denying the human nature is what many christians advocate, thinking that this makes them more holy.

So if original sin exists in adam, why is human nature a good thing to follow. Answer me that.

Nice play on words. Back to the subject..

Once again, avoiding the question. It is the subject. You believe the bible, so you believe in some concept of sin and that we need jesus to save us. If sin is present, why is it a good idea to use our 'human nature' to justify anything? Wouldn't that just be more sin?

You're seriously misconstruing my point is what I'm saying. i.e. That's not what I meant by it.

Atheism is destructive (which can also be good to eek out truth). Religion is constructive.

This is where most people misunderstand atheism, as you have just done.

You've got it mixed up - atheism is not destructive; religion is. Take a look at the last 2000 years and all the evil things that have been done in the name of religion. Many times when science made a discovery, the church would hush it up, discredit, burn the person or the papers, and ultimately try to get ride of it. Why? Because the person's discovery had negative implications in the authenticity of their religion. Religion has tried to deny any science that discredits their religion. Religion has been at the forefront of keep humanity in the dark ages (ironically, it was the church who ruled during that time).

You were a Christian yet you don't understand what Christianity is. Christianity is an aim, and not a destination. Whatever people do, they do as people. To aim to be like Jesus is not to do bad stuff, but the opposite. People are scared, hungry for power, greedy, Christ-likeness is the opposite of this.

Of course I understand what christianity is. But that is irrelevant. Religion maybe be constructive when idealised, but the vast majority of our history shows otherwise. For all practical purposes, christianity is destructive. It might have done a good thing here and there, but compared with the rest of its history, the idealised version falls down.

To aim to be like jesus is to want to be good. Christlikeness is becoming like christ, in love, peace, and spirit. I understand that. But the example religion provides us is far removed from that definition.

History is full of evidence of obscene acts committed by PEOPLE. These people, even though they may claim to be Christian, even Church leaders, including Popes and their equivalent from other denominations, have like you say, committed, facilitated or condoned heinous atrocities. No matter what you claim, it is no indication of your actual motivation at any moment. Jesus said that people could achieve anything with the minutest fragment of faith, and that no person could. This is an illustration of the vastness of the task.

Atheism is constructive because it is evidence based. It is not a belief in anything, it is simply non-belief. An atheist can do many evil things, but he doesn't do any of them in the name of atheism. Atheism has no dogma; no set of beliefs. It is simply belief in observable, tangible reality.

Atheism's only goal is the destruction of religion. SCIENCE is constructive, but that has nothing really to do with atheism. You apply one rule to Atheism it appears but change the rules to apply to Christianity/ religion. Can you see that?

Atheism has no goals. It is the absence of belief. If atheism destroys religion, it will do it by science, not by belief. It has no agenda, it is simply the desire to follow the evidence where it leads. If the evidence leads us to believe that god cannot and is not real, then that is where we must go.

That looks foolish. You and I agree on empirical evidence. Atheism, the way your defining it, is the belief that there is no other descriptor of humanity than science. You in your various postings seem to want to cling to some other kind of explanation. the arrival at that goal is the denial of your own feelings.

It seems you, like many christians don't understand atheism.

I've been an atheist. I was brought up an atheist, unlike you. I am a Christian. Were you ever a full blown Christian rather than the child of a Christian?

(Big gap as I've answered all of your following points above)

Please don't try to belittle me because I'm young. I'm always up for a good argument, but you seem to avoid one. I would expect you to know more about these things than me, but all the evidence here is to the contrary.

When have I put you down because of your age thoughtful? I'm not avoiding confrontation. Why else would I be on this forum?

---

EvF



Please make a simple coherent point and I'll try to respond. Your post above is word salad.

[athoughtfulman]

Ok, fair enough. I think that was better.

I was a full blown christian, and therefore, I suppose, I'm still trying to find explanation for things other than fact. I'm new to this. But on this topic, I just started a book about Antony Flew. He was an influential atheist writer who had the attitude that he had to follow the evidence where it leads. I'm only a chapter in, but it details his move from atheism to christianity and the evidence he found.

I've got no problem with jokes, it just seemed like you were using them to avoid questions. Anyway, I think we understand each other now.

At least for now, I believe that the supernatural is a process in the mind rather than a real thing. I'm completely happy (or at least try to be...) for everyone to believe as they wish. I just think it's idiotic when people refuse to see that its a choice. You seem to understand that - you know that it's real for you, and may not be real for another. That's fair.

[Edwardo Piet]

EvF



Please make a simple coherent point and I'll try to respond. Your post above is word salad.

Ok...well hopefully you will understand what I mean by this and it won't be so simple that you so easily misconstrue it:

Your original idea is not undefeated...far from it. It is assumed to be invalid and baseless until you back it up or give it any support whatsoever!

Your "idea" is just a bare assertion. Just that - an idea - without any substance to back it up.

EvF

[fr0d0]

@ thoughtful.. I'd be interested to hear what you get from that book.

@EvF.. Yes, you're right that my case has no facts to back it up.

Unlike a claim of God's existence, where you could rightly complain that I have no actual proof: my claim of no proof is completely supported by the facts. I'm very sure proof is absolutely non existent.

Or can you hold the argument against me: that we cannot know absolutely so we can only state that on the balance of probability, that there is no proof?

(Careful coz I have you in a pincer movement here! )

And stop being so good you guys, you're making me look bad!

[Edwardo Piet]

fr0d0, if you are not claiming God's existence and only that he lacks evidence so you 'need faith' TO BELIEVE...I agree with you...

But you need faith TO BELIEVE....you certainly don't need to believe...
And no evidence is not a good reason to believe! Therefore 'faith' is not a good reason to believe....

There are plenty of things you could 'have faith' in because there's no evidence...why choose on in particular?
If you are not concerned about God's not existence and merely saying that the 'proof is absolutely non existent' then I agree with you!

Proof of God IS not-existent...so why on earth do you believe in him? WHY have faith?

Yes I would say that there is not remotely any evidence of God and that he is a highly complex idea makes him highly improbable...
There are PLENTY of Gods and supernatural things to believe in! So why believe in God? Or your God in particular for a start??

The facts don't back God up...just with many things that we don't believe in...so why 'believe in' God?

I never claimed that God was disproved or that there is absolutely no God...
I only say that he is very VERY improbable.

We don't need evidence AGAINST God...there is no evidence OF God...and he is a super being, very complex - he requires a LOT of evidence....
And there's not even ANY evidence of him...yes I say he's extremelyimprobable.

Is that a good reason to believe in him? There are plenty of things without evidence to believe in and highly improbable things to believe in...

EvF

[fr0d0]

fr0d0, if you are not claiming God's existence and only that he lacks evidence so you 'need faith' TO BELIEVE...I agree with you...

Thankyou

But you need faith TO BELIEVE....you certainly don't need to believe...
And no evidence is not a good reason to believe! Therefore 'faith' is not a good reason to believe....

Bad conclusion.

I'm not saying that you don't need to believe. I'm saying there is no provable evidence that would mean you have to believe. There has to be a choice. This is the whole thrust of Christianity. Choice. If the tiniest piece of proof existed our choice would be gone.

To limit yourself to proof protects you from opening your mind and thinking about things thoroughly. Out there in free thought you risk losing the game. But what's the point of thinking at all if you're going to limit yourself so much? You keep repeating over and over the same statements. You never seem to progress with those.

[athoughtfulman]

I think you're getting mixed up here frodo. Evidence is right that 'faith' is not a good reason to believe. As far as the lack of evidence being the 'whole trust of christianity', I beg to differ. There is always a choice. The choice would exist whether there is any evidence or not; it's not something which only comes out when there is a lack of evidence. I understand what you're trying to say though, that god gave men free will, that in the bible he says blessed is the man who believes without seeing (seeing being evidence).

Even if there were evidence of god, people would still be free to choose whether they followed him or not. The choice would exist regardless. The choice you're talking about is the choice about whether he's real or not, however according to the bible, it's not simply a belief in god's existence that gets you into heaven. Rather it's a choice to follow god, to be his servant, to hold to the truth of his word, to give your life to him and so on. And like I said, regardless of evidence of his existence, people will always be free to choose whether they follow god or not.

[Edwardo Piet]

Frodo there are countless 'unprovable' unfalsifiable 'faith claims' that completely lack evidence for you to believe in. Why cherry-pick out one in particular?

I would think that the existence God should be about evidence and if that means 'less choice' because you're just going with the evidence to believe in something (like a sane person rather than just believing in anything under the sun that is unprovable - and picking out 'favourites) then who cares it's a good thing! It's a rational, sane thing.

Fr0d0, you seem to be treating belief in God as not a matter of fact about his existence or non-existence. But rather as a preference like whether you like pepperoni pizza or not.

Well there's lot's of flavours to choose from. Countless imaginary ones too - why pick out one in particular when here we are talking about whether something DOES or DOES not exist or not?

What good is there in believing in a non-existent God? Unless you are only after the placebo effect and are quite happy with a so-called 'positive delusion' if there is such a thing. Short term perhaps...but the longer term? I don't think it's such a good idea!

If delusion comforts you for a day that's one thing. If you spend a life time believing in a 'comforting delusion' and even influence others while you are at it, that's another thing.

Does or does not God exist? That's the question here. It's not a matter of preference a subjective opinion, a "well it's true for me anyway" or whatever. It's a matter of fact - of existence (or non-existence).

EvF

[Kyuuketsuki]

Ev,

Indeed ... Frodo, why are you a Christian and not some other religion? Why are all those religions wrong and yours right?

Kyu