Evidence that God exists

[Anto Kennedy]

I'm only putting forward the option of personal religious experience as acceptable evidence that God exists. You can challenge that on purely rational grounds such as the fact that such religious experiences are unverifiable. The counter challenge would of course be that since these perceptions occur within the mind, then it is only our lack of understanding of the mind preventing these experiences to be verified by a third party, neutral observer under laboratory conditions. And that time may well come soon, here's hoping.

AK really is posting from his confinement in a mental institution

I was, for over seven years living in a cave (not literally, lived in isolation) with little to no human contact, so of course my social skills will be rusty. It was on this journey into the mind that I had my own religious experience, which I believe whole-heartedly can, and will be, recreated under lab conditions.

Our spiritual ancestors mastered the art of inducing religious experiences. That art was forgotten, but if a bunch of hairy stone age barbarians can do it, it should be easy for us "enlightened" men to do it too.

Oh and by the way, when I said "ask and you shall recieve", my toungue was firmly planted in my cheek.

[Rhizomorph13]

Anto,

Was it some harmaline analog mixed with Dimethyltriptamine(DMT)? Or perhaps Psylocin combined with a monoamine oxidase inhibitor(MAOI)?

Which entheogen were you using?

Self flagellation is known to induce some pretty interesting states. Well, I've read about them anyway.

Which direction were you pointing your telescope?

Rhizo

[Anto Kennedy]

No drugs, no flagellation, no fasting and no heavy breathing in my instance.

I actually don't remember what I did, I wasn't exactly planning on being a religious nutjob, it just sort of happened.

The only precondition as far as I'm aware, in my own experience, is to be honest, open-minded, nuture the imagination and generally be child like.

I wish I did know how to recreate the experience, but I'm sure it's a pretty simple procedure.

Interestingly though I did go through an amoral phase during this transformation. Good thing I was living in social isolation, otherwise I could have done some damage. Maybe that's why it's important to withdraw from society. It is like all inhibitions (social in the majority of cases) are stripped away leaving a naked beast, my "true self" it may seem. However even this is stripped away, leaving a child, at this stage I turned into a pussy, but in a good way I suppose. We are conditioned to be aggressive and uncomprimising to defend ourselves in society, and what the world needs isn't another asshole, it needs an effortless kindness. Effortless because it requires no action from the individual, that "light unto the world" only has to shine.

I honestly can't remember much of that time, but I'd like to say one thing. There are many people that talk of their religious experiences in terms of "endless bliss" and "oneness", if you hear that, know that it is bullshit. A real religious experience is hell, literally my friends, literally. You have to descend into the underworld before arising into the heavens. It's not a pretty sight, not an easy journey, there is great pain and suffering and a awesome despair when you fall into the abyss.

It makes my skin crawl just thinking about it. But in this time of great despair something happens. Don't ask me what, you'll just have to see for yourself. And anyone can.

[Rhizomorph13]

Anto,

Ahh so some non-descript meditation, I've done that but maybe not the exact way that you don't even remember. I used to believe in a lot of kooky things; levitation, mind reading, invisibility, and even telekinesis. I've spent a lot of time in the metaphysical section of the book store and bought tomes on all of these subjects trying to improve my abilities. I also tried inventing my own voodoo and magical methods and some have had effect although none of those effects were documented. I feel that if one person has done something I should be able to recreate the effects without training. The effects were very subjective so I have had to reject the validity of them because I have learned to "lean not on my own understanding" (Prov 3:5) and have taken a more skeptical view of the world. Eilonnwy posted a good video in the "9/11 Truthers" about open mindedness that was interesting.

And....

sometimes pussies are so full of shit that they become assholes:
[youtube]u6rDeOojFXk[/youtube]

Navel gazing; halfway to jamming your head right up your ass!

Rhizo

[Tiberius]

Therefore if God exists, the only way to find out is to "ask and it will be given you", "seek and you shall find".

Unless you make an effort to percieve god, you're being unscientific. Science is perception, if you can't perceive anything, try and try again untill your perceive "something".

You make the assumption I haven't done this already. I have. I spent 9 years as a Christian, and I eventually realized that I got no answers; the answers I was receiving were from my own brain. I got no new knowledge, and the experiences I put down to "this is God" were just normal creations of the human brain.

There is no burden of proof for either side in the debate. However, the burden is on the atheist to see for themselves what all the fuss is about.

The burden of proof is on the one making the positive claim (i.e. the theist). This is how all claims are judged in real life, so I fail to see why there is some kind of exception for claims of gods. I have tried to see what the fuss is about, but it never works. I've tried to pray and got no answer.

And if God does not exist, then you have to keep looking anyway, we aren't omniscient so we can never know for sure that God doesn't exist. If you give up, you're not being scientific.

Indeed, but whoever said I was giving up?

Therefore, atheism, is unscientific ASWELL as being irrational.

Atheism is a disbelief in gods. If you have not experienced god yet, then it is a perfectly scientific deduction to make. If science has not found evidence for something, it does not hold it as true. The same applies for atheism. Your entire argument rests on your perception of atheists' attitudes rather than atheism itself, yet you make a conclusion about atheism. This is a fallacy.

It's a bit like saying "look at democracies like America and Russia; they hold the largest armies and nukes. This means that democracy is a bad idea".

If atheists don't believe in God, they don't believe in Love.

That's based on your assumption that God is love. Show your evidence! I could easily say "Everything Richard Dawkins says is love. If you don't believe everything Richard Dawkins says, you don't believe in love". It's yet another fallacy. Your claim that "god is love" is unsubstantiated, and the burden of proof on such a claim is solely on you.

If atheists don't believe in Love, and Love is the absolute moral authority, then atheists are immoral.

Based on the faulty assumption that love is the absolute moral authority, and that atheists don't believe in love. I'm an atheist and I believe in love, is this some kind of exception to your rule, or just the evidence that disproves it?

Love cannot be proven nor disproven.

Why? I'd argue that love is an emotive response mixed with something on an instinctual level, just as most emotions are. I'd further submit that science and neurology have shown us how our brains affect our emotions quite well, and that we would probably discover love to be something within the brain.

If you don't want Love, simply because it is irrational, I pity you.

I have love, I believe in love, I think love is a great emotion that humans have.

I do not believe your faulty assumption that God = love.

[Rhizomorph13]

Adrian,

God is love, love is blind, therefore God is blind!

Elvis shakes, jello shakes, therefore Elvis is jello!

Rhizo

[Tiberius]

Adrian,

God is love, love is blind, therefore God is blind!

...my God! I've never seen it that way before!

Finally! I was blind but now I see! I see the blindness of god!

-Adrian

[Anto Kennedy]

Ahh so some non-descript meditation, I've done that but maybe not the exact way that you don't even remember.

You make the assumption I haven't done this already. I have. I spent 9 years as a Christian, and I eventually realized that I got no answers; the answers I was receiving were from my own brain. I got no new knowledge, and the experiences I put down to "this is God" were just normal creations of the human brain.

What were you're experiences when searching for answers?

I used to believe in a lot of kooky things; levitation, mind reading, invisibility, and even telekinesis. I've spent a lot of time in the metaphysical section of the book store and bought tomes on all of these subjects trying to improve my abilities. I also tried inventing my own voodoo and magical methods and some have had effect although none of those effects were documented. I feel that if one person has done something I should be able to recreate the effects without training. The effects were very subjective so I have had to reject the validity of them because I have learned to "lean not on my own understanding" (Prov 3:5) and have taken a more skeptical view of the world.

If you seek understanding with an ulterior motive, which I'm assuming, based only on what you have described here, is the pursuit of some sort of supernatural power or knowledge to impose your will on the world, then you're not going to get very far.

The first thing they teach you at religious nutjob school is you have to give up you're own will. Ya know, the whole snuffing out desire thing.)

The burden of proof is on the one making the positive claim (i.e. the theist).

What positive claim would that be? "God exists" or "I have faith in God".

Theism is a faith in God. If you have experienced God, then it is a perfectly scientific deduction to make. If science (perception) has found evidence for something, it does hold it as true. (at least to the one perceiving the phenomena.)

Your entire argument rests on your perception of theists' attitudes rather than theism itself, yet you make a conclusion about theism. This is a fallacy.

By the way, I don't know what a fallacy is, where do I get one?

That's based on your assumption that God is love. Show your evidence!

Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.

(1 John 4 7-8)

God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in him.

(1 John 4 16)

The 20th-century Rabbi Eliyahu Eliezer Dessler is frequently quoted as defining love from the Jewish point of view as "giving without expecting to take"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love#Religious_views

God takes nothing and gives all. From God everything arises. God takes nothing back. God is Love.

"Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, and always perseveres."

(1 Cor. 13:4–7)

Ishq, or divine love, is the emphasis of Sufism. Sufis believe that love is a projection of the essence of God to the universe. God desires to recognize beauty, and as if one looks at a mirror to see oneself, God "looks" at itself within the dynamics of nature. Since everything is a reflection of God, the school of Sufism practices to see the beauty inside the apparently ugly. Sufism is often referred to as the religion of love. God in Sufism is referred to in three main terms, which are the Lover, Loved, and Beloved, with the last of these terms being often seen in Sufi poetry. A common viewpoint of Sufism is that through love, humankind can get back to its inherent purity and grace. The saints of Sufism are infamous for being "drunk" due to their love of God; hence, the constant reference to wine in Sufi poetry and music.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love#Religious_views

Karuṇā is compassion and mercy, which reduces the suffering of others. It is complementary to wisdom and is necessary for enlightenment. For Mahāyāna Buddhists, karuṇā is a co-requisite for becoming a bodhisattva.

Adveṣa and mettā are benevolent love. This love is unconditional and requires considerable self-acceptance. This is quite different from ordinary love, which is usually about attachment and sex and which rarely occurs without self-interest. Instead, in Buddhism it refers to detachment and unselfish interest in others' welfare.

The Bodhisattva ideal in Mahayana Buddhism involves the complete renunciation of oneself in order to take on the burden of a suffering world. The strongest motivation one has in order to take the path of the Bodhisattva is the idea of salvation within unselfish, altruistic love for all sentient beings.

Meh.

I could easily say "Everything Richard Dawkins says is love. If you don't believe everything Richard Dawkins says, you don't believe in love".

If you're an adult it should be easy to see pretty much anything. Doesn't make it true.

Your claim that "god is love" is unsubstantiated, and the burden of proof on such a claim is solely on you.

If you don't believe me, see for yourself. God in all religions is the primordial one who lives eternally, from which all life springs, and into which all life returns. The definition of Love is to give without recieving, so God is Love, the Great Infinite Love.

Based on the faulty assumption that love is the absolute moral authority, and that atheists don't believe in love. I'm an atheist and I believe in love, is this some kind of exception to your rule, or just the evidence that disproves it?

I was sorta being impish with that whole immoral thing. I don't believe atheists are immoral, was just having a bit of fun with this sort of reasoning which I was reading over the past few pages.

Well, you say you believe in Love, so that makes you a theist. Welcome to the club!

Why? I'd argue that love is an emotive response mixed with something on an instinctual level, just as most emotions are.

No one cares what you can argue though, only evidence matters. Anyway it appears you're confusing Love with lust or mammalian mating behaviours.

I'd further submit that science and neurology have shown us how our brains affect our emotions quite well, and that we would probably discover love to be something within the brain.

Maybe so, no evidence at the moment though.

I have love, I believe in love, I think love is a great emotion that humans have.

I hope so

[Rhizomorph13]

Anto,

It depends on which nutjob school you subscribe to. There is a branch refered to as the "name it claim it" school of thought that talks about praying for miracles then sealing the prayer with an audible shout of "I receive my miracle!" Quite a powerful session, a bunch of people in an auditorium repeating, "I receive my miracle!"

As for your question about my personal experiences, well that would be a long story filled with all manner of colorful beasties and hallucinogenic landscapes, not all caused by actual hallucinogens. Did I hear the voice of god? Well, that goes with a lot of questions like, did I actually leave my body or speak with demons or any number of trippy stuff that probably just means I have a very creative imagination.

Another explaination would be schizophrenia which I have researched but not actually gone to a psychiatrist. I have taken the MMPI and didn't correlate with schizophrenics so I am left with the idea that I have a fertile imagination. Sounds like you got one too; not a bad thing but something to get a handle on.

I've never understood why people interpret submiting to god's will and giving up your own. That notion seems retarded to me. God gave us free will so we could give it back to him? I've known people to sit alone in their house for hours trying to manufacture a "God's will" reason to do anything. That is one of the most self-destructive concepts in religion today, "Don't think for yourselves, wait for God to direct your actions."

Bible verses aren't evidence.

Rhizo

[Anto Kennedy]

It depends on which nutjob school you subscribe to. There is a branch refered to as the "name it claim it" school of thought that talks about praying for miracles then sealing the prayer with an audible shout of "I receive my miracle!" Quite a powerful session, a bunch of people in an auditorium repeating, "I receive my miracle!"

Sounds fun......

As for your question about my personal experiences, well that would be a long story filled with all manner of colorful beasties and hallucinogenic landscapes, not all caused by actual hallucinogens. Did I hear the voice of god? Well, that goes with a lot of questions like, did I actually leave my body or speak with demons or any number of trippy stuff that probably just means I have a very creative imagination.

Another explaination would be schizophrenia which I have researched but not actually gone to a psychiatrist. I have taken the MMPI and didn't correlate with schizophrenics so I am left with the idea that I have a fertile imagination. Sounds like you got one too; not a bad thing but something to get a handle on.

Nah you ain't got schizophrenia, it's only schizophrenia when you can't turn it off. I'd love to hear more about your experiences though, sounds very interesting. But did you have THAT experience, ya know the one where the universe becomes all lifeless and empty, the heart begins palpatating, every muscle in the body twists and writhes, electricty shoots up along the length of the spine in rythmic surges, pulsating out of the top of the skull, then the fun begins.....

I've never understood why people interpret submiting to god's will and giving up your own. That notion seems retarded to me. God gave us free will so we could give it back to him?

I know, it's fucked up lol. However we're not talking about your will in reality, we're talking about the many, often times conflicting, wills of the body. The stomach says, 'feed me', the throat says, 'quench me', the genitalia say, 'sqeeze me' etc. These wills take away from our own happiness, so the irony is, by giving up these wills, by giving up that life, we gain new life and a new, free will, the Holy Spirit, which is the Spirit of Creation. Remember that we aren't giving up our will to another human, or biological entity, we're giving up our biological (and psychological) wills to allow the Will of Creation to drive us, and the Will of Creation, the Holy Spirit, is the Will of Nature.

It's about perfectly adapting to this reality. What is the first will of life, the primal urge, undiluted by sexual desire, the desire to consume, the desire to possess. What is the will of the first ever living organism on this planet, with neither stomach nor genitalia? It is a command, the Holy Spirit, the Word spoken by God in the beginning, 'There shalt not be nothing!', 'I cannot die, there shall be no death, I shall live, I shall create, I shall struggle and overcome!'

It's about living true to life through the get desire, the great Spirit of Creation, undiluted by the minor desires that have accumulated over the past 4 billion years (apparently life may have begun as early as that, although to be conservative let's say 3.5 billion)

We are not submitting to an intelligence, ordering our every action and thought, we are submitting to a spirit, an energy, not just that, but the Greatest Energy, that which creates and sutains the universe itself, and that energy becomes our own, that fire burns in our hearts, and we then order that energy, we provide the intelligence with that Spirit.

And of the wills that comprimise our integrity, it's the psychological wills which are the most difficult to control and snuff out.

I've known people to sit alone in their house for hours trying to manufacture a "God's will" reason to do anything.

A great portion of the Bhagavad Gita deals with this very issue, it speaks of only letting go of the fruits of action, not action itself. To act, somewhat blindly, with no desire for any personal gain or attachment to a desireable outcome.

That is one of the most self-destructive concepts in religion today, "Don't think for yourselves, wait for God to direct your actions."

It's not about God directing you're actions, but fueling your actions with his Spirit. Will is unintelligent, it proceeds from thought, it is energy. Energy does not direct, it is directed.

Bible verses aren't evidence.

Is this to do with the God is Love thing? Well if you've got a better definition of God then I'm all ears.