But in that instance the experience wasn't contradictory, if you had 200 people saying it was a giant green bird and 200 saying it was a series of flying saucers then in neither instance would you have a conclusive experience - This is more analogous to the religious personal experiences, where two groups come up with contradictory attributions.

Also, if 200 people said they saw a flying saucer, you would conclude that they had seen something (and likewise the religious experience you would conclude that they experienced something) but without a higher standard of evidence you would be unable to conclude that their sight (or experience) was correctly attributed to the phenomenon that they believed they were seeing (or experiencing).

That is why personal experience alone is completely insufficient for reaching a conclusion - In all instances you need to confirm that the experience was correct, with the case of entities such as God that are non-demonstrable it is impossible to prove the experience is correct, be it wanting to know whether the experience of the Christian God was actually an experience of that God, or of any God at all.

What we know of personal experiences of this nature is through neuroscience, and we can show conclusively that the parts of the brain involved in religious experience are the same as those that construct any dream. fantasy situation, from hypothetical conversations in the mind to induced physical experiences that never happened. There is no neurological function unique to religious experiences, as such if you accept the validity of your own experience, you have no mechanism by which to distinguish it from the false attributions of similar experience.

(September 20, 2010 at 4:50 pm)blood_pardon Wrote: There are instances where telling people they are crazy is appropriate. You are right, I am wrong.

Alright. Now that we are agreed that crazy people are just plain crazy we get back to the original question. How do we know that the person making the claim is not just a little "crazy?" Or lying? Or merely wrong? People with a predisposition towards the supernatural will see the "hand of god" in every anomaly in much the same way as UFO fanatics see little green men in every light in the sky.

Odds are, its just a plane.


Likewise, odds are that 'god' is not talking to you. I understand the appeal of a doctrine which tells an otherwise insignificant human that the 'creator of the universe' is talking to him but really.... what would such a being want with you?

@Void I agree that personal experience alone is completely insufficient for reaching a conclusion, which is why God reveals himself to us personally. That's his demonstration. That's why I don't fault non believers for not believing. It would be irrational to expect you to believe without him first demonstrating himself to you. My perspective though is a world view (such as materialism) that doesn't allow any possibility for the intangible to exist is a bias detrimental to seeing that demonstration. If you experience something, something similar to what thousands of others describe (and this isn't an argument from numbers or anything) it doesn't make it any more objectively true, but it does make it more subjectively true as the other opinions are indicative. Some may think it's rationalization, but I don't think it is, and if you experience something first then you'll obviously call it a justification not a rationalization. The center temporal lobe (I believe is what you're referencing) Is the emotional memory and is also responsible for us reliving the emotions involved in a rape, racial hatred, the conviction of "Man this dream felt so real", and lots of other things. Just because we can manipulate that into the same emotional response just means we can trigger chemicals. Does that have any basis on whether the rape happened, or what the dream was about? No, it came from another part of the brain, and in some cases that was from something actually experienced in reality and stored in memory. You're saying (in essence) we can simulate all religious effects through manipulation of this and I disagree. Neuroscience also has no way of explaining a soul as I've argued elsewhere on here.

(September 21, 2010 at 6:52 am)tackattack Wrote: Neuroscience also has no way of explaining a soul as I've argued elsewhere on here.

Why would neuroscience have an explanation for a non-existant thing?

(September 22, 2010 at 7:06 am)downbeatplumb Wrote:

(September 21, 2010 at 6:52 am)tackattack Wrote: Neuroscience also has no way of explaining a soul as I've argued elsewhere on here.

Why would neuroscience have an explanation for a non-existant thing?

Because a soul is the currency of the devil, without we can't get racecars for free. Also because neuroscience is not geared towards discovering such a thing a soul.

Quote:Neuroscience also has no way of explaining a soul as I've argued elsewhere on here.

Tacky,neuroscience doesn't need an explanation. That need (the burden of proof) belongs 100% to the person(s) claiming the existence of a soul.

(September 22, 2010 at 11:27 pm)josh.niles Wrote:

(September 22, 2010 at 7:06 am)downbeatplumb Wrote:

(September 21, 2010 at 6:52 am)tackattack Wrote: Neuroscience also has no way of explaining a soul as I've argued elsewhere on here.

Why would neuroscience have an explanation for a non-existant thing?

Because a soul is the currency of the devil, without we can't get racecars for free. Also because neuroscience is not geared towards discovering such a thing a soul.

Wait a minute, you can get race cars for free?

Evidence God Exists?

because WE exist!

Short answer.

That's why dogs don't have a heaven. And my dog deserves it - poor bugger hasn't evolved enough to imagine one yet.

(September 23, 2010 at 8:55 pm)jason56 Wrote: Evidence God Exists?

because WE exist!

Short answer.

That's why dogs don't have a heaven. And my dog deserves it - poor bugger hasn't evolved enough to imagine one yet.

We exist so leprechauns and the flying spaghetti monster exist. Okay, gotcha.

...AND HEY! All dogs go to heaven!

(September 23, 2010 at 9:00 pm)IceSage Wrote:

(September 23, 2010 at 8:55 pm)jason56 Wrote: Evidence God Exists?

because WE exist!

Short answer.

That's why dogs don't have a heaven. And my dog deserves it - poor bugger hasn't evolved enough to imagine one yet.

We exist so leprechauns and the flying spaghetti monster exist. Okay, gotcha.

...AND HEY! All dogs go to heaven!

No. Religion is slightly more perfected than the idea of the flying spaghetti monster and leprechauns.

It holds about the same weight, I agree with you, but religion is a well established part of our evolution.

Think about the mindset of the first humans who came up with the idea.