Can you prove God's non-existence(question only for atheists,if possible)?

[Adrian Baker]

If God is said to exist now, then imagine a world without God. How different would it be? I can't see any difference at all - bad sh*t happens now, good people die can young, millions die of hunger, poverty or war.. What difference does this supposed God make? There are no miracles, no revelations, no messages, no interference in world affairs. Did God 'help' people when the Tsunami struck?
If he did exist, how can we tell from his actions?

This to me is proof of the non-existence of God.

 

[pbj59]

Or

God may not exist in the form we expect, or have been led to believe.

 

[Adrian Baker]

God may not exist in the form we expect, or have been led to believe.

So Jesus (if you are a christian) was wrong? Hmmm... odd that for a deity!

 

[Ivan Seeking]

If God is said to exist now, then imagine a world without God. How different would it be? .

We have no frame of reference. It there is a God or not, we have what we have, and we can't really guess at how it might be otherwise.

I can't see any difference at all - bad sh*t happens now, good people die can young, millions die of hunger, poverty or war.. What difference does this supposed God make?

How do we know that this isn't because God exists? So that by implication at least, evil exists as well; which could explain how humans can be so cruel. Don't you ever wonder how it is that people can do the things that they do? We can accept the premise of mental illness without excluding other influences. And we don't know for a fact that all "evil" can be explained by biology or neurology. In fact just the opposite is true: We assume without proof that it can be, which is called faith.

There are no miracles, no revelations, no messages, no interference in world affairs.

That is a statement of faith on your part. People claim to witness miracles every day. based on your own faith and beliefs about the world, you choose not to believe, or even seriously consider any of them as potentially genuine.

Did God 'help' people when the Tsunami struck? If he did exist, how can we tell from his actions? This to me is proof of the non-existence of God.

Everyone dies. If we assume that a deity exists, then we can always rationalize, or have faith, that tragedy is part of a greater plan that justifies all suffering.

 

[JamesU]

If God is said to exist now, then imagine a world without God. How different would it be? I can't see any difference at all - bad sh*t happens now, good people die can young, millions die of hunger, poverty or war.. What difference does this supposed God make? There are no miracles, no revelations, no messages, no interference in world affairs. Did God 'help' people when the Tsunami struck?
If he did exist, how can we tell from his actions?

This to me is proof of the non-existence of God.

or, god exists, but we created the fear of death. meaning that maybe death wouldn't be such a bad this as we believe it to be. And we can't have a perfect world, without death, we would have massive over-population years before now. and people that suffer, would never die, they would just go on, suffering forever. You're just upholding the illusion that death is something to fear, when in reality, death is nothing

 

[Adrian Baker]

We have no frame of reference. It there is a God or not, we have what we have, and we can't really guess at how it might be otherwise.

Do religous people have a 'better' life than those without faith? Put 1000 christians (for example) and 1000 atheists to scrutiny and try to spot differences in luck, life : expectancy etc. Could a scientific process determine a difference?? I think not.

How do we know that this isn't because God exists? So that by implication at least, evil exists as well; which could explain how humans can be so cruel. Don't you ever wonder how it is that people can do the things that they do? We can accept the premise of mental illness without excluding other influences. And we don't know for a fact that all "evil" can be explained by biology or neurology. In fact just the opposite is true: We assume without proof that it can be, which is called faith.

So, to try to explain how bad life is for many even with a God, you invent the 'force of evil'. Basically you are saying that 'life is ****', but God can't help because a 'force of evil' is at work. Explain the difference between this and not having a God to help in the first place.

That is a statement of faith on your part. People claim to witness miracles every day. based on your own faith and beliefs about the world, you choose not to believe, or even seriously consider any of them as potentially genuine.

No I don't. My schizophrenic friend has constant conversations with the "people around him, and also with God'' when he doesn't take his medication. Either the pills he takes are 'anti-god' pills or they make him more rational...

Also, there are many claims of miracles in the world today. My email inbox is full of claims for missing millions in Nigeria, penis extensions, get-rich schemes etc Are these claims true merely because the person claiming them says so? Or should I apply scientific method to what they claim? In Science, a majority belief or claim does NOT become true merely because most people state it.

Everyone dies. If we assume that a deity exists, then we can always rationalize, or have faith, that tragedy is part of a greater plan that justifies all suffering.

So basically you want a REASON for your life so you invent God? Do you actually believe in free will? Is your life really totally mapped out? If it is all planned out, where is free will? Without free will there is no sin, no evil, no good... So therefore no way to follow God's guidance as you have no choice... So, all the sh*t in your life is a 'gift' of God! Great stuff.. let's get praying!

 

[Adrian Baker]

...You're just upholding the illusion that death is something to fear, when in reality, death is nothing

No, Religious people harp on and on about judgement and death. I have no fears whatsoever about death.. I will die, cease to be, will no longer be relevant.

Tough sh*t really but that's the way it goes... I have no fears.

 

[Les Sleeth]

I'm just going to respond to several points I've heard here without referencing who said them.


It is commonly accepted that there is no possible way to prove something can NOT exist. If you prove something doesn't exist here, how do we know it doesn't exist elsewhere? If you prove conditions in our setting preclude something's existence, how do we know some set of conditions we can't see doesn't allow it outside our conditions? If we claim the inability to prove something means it doesn't exist, how do we know our standard of "proof" is the only standard by which to attain certainty? God cannot be proven to not exist.

I will stick my neck out and say God also cannot be proven to exist. There are ways to prove things DO exist, but I say God isn't one of them. A similar dilemma is trying to prove one's own subjectivity. Can we "externalize" our self and prove we exist? No, because the nature of subjectivity is that it can't be externalized. But that doesn't mean subjective experience doesn't exist, it only means it doesn't yield itself to empirical scrutiny. Same with God. A careful study of the most powerful reports of God reveal it is an internal experience.

It is agonizing (to me at least) to hear people talk about the enlightenment experience who haven't studied or experienced it. After thirty years of dedicated study I still find the experience a profound mystery, yet people don't hesitate to speak casually, uninformed, and even critically of it. What sort of criticism is it that has no research, experience, or serious reflection behind it?

Regarding the possibility that God exists, why must we accept any religion's portrayal? Isn't the general idea of God, at least by thinking people, that some sort of consciousness might be involved in shaping creation? Why throw in supernatural, or omniscience, or omnipotence, or eternal existence? Those are all traits merely imagined by theologians or tribal holy men or whomever. There is no reason to mess up the discussion of whether any type of universal consciousness exists by getting caught up in blasting baseless religious supposition.

 

[setAI]

I've tried to disprove God's existence [id est: a self referent information processing network with total and universal interfacing with the fundamental quantum computational matrix of Existence- id est: The Multiverse[es[es[es[...]]]]]- however it seems it is far easier to posit an infinite variety of self-aware universal computation/control systems in the infinite/universal phase-space of possible existences- or rather it is easier to prove that there are infinite gods that can totally manipulate our world and ourselves as they see fit-

one- Existence exists- so it emerges arbitraily/chaotically- how could some factor limit Existence fundamental structure thus allowing an ordered form? then we wouldn't be talking fundamental Existence- so chaotic/random structure/fluctuation must occur- and thus in an infinite number of such fluctuations some would be randomly totally universally connected as 'God'- a self-controlled quantum cosmological system-

in any event in an 'infinte'/'eternal' Multiverse [which I consider self-evident- once you consider that Existance exists at all] would randomly result in quantum cosmologies that are inherently configured as self-aware information networks with total interfacing with all possible structures-

theoretically a universal quantum computer would by definition contain an infinitude of such 'Gods'

[edit] the infinite set of total/universally connected quantum universes might- by their nature- be connected with all the other infinite possible world-states- or 'gods'- thus the Cosmos wouldn't strictly be 'monotheistic' or 'polytheistic'- but in a way both-

 

[Les Sleeth]

a unique God is thus impossible . . . a singular 'creator' deity such as YHVH/yaweh/Jehova is thus disproven

I would suggest that not only did you not disprove a unique God or a singular creator deity, you cannot disprove anything whatsoever. Want to try? Try to disprove the existence of, for instance, pink elephants farting universes via big bangs.

An empirical/logical proof derives from immediately present observables or logical tautologies; those methods cannot eliminate influences beyond observation or logical constraints.

 

[setAI]

I know- I just edited before you replied (^___^)

 

[Les Sleeth]

I know- I just edited before you replied (^___^)

Well shucks, I was hoping you'd take on the pink elephant challenge.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Do religous people have a 'better' life than those without faith? Put 1000 christians (for example) and 1000 atheists to scrutiny and try to spot differences in luck, life : expectancy etc. Could a scientific process determine a difference?? I think not.

First of all, I don't see how this speaks to the point that I made. I said that we have no frame of reference by which to judge how the world might be different with or without a God. But as for spotting a difference, IIRC, there are in fact quite a few studies that show a distinct difference between people who have strong religious beliefs and those who don't. I will dig a few up later. A quick check resulted in too many unrelated hits.

So, to try to explain how bad life is for many even with a God, you invent the 'force of evil'. Basically you are saying that 'life is ****', but God can't help because a 'force of evil' is at work. Explain the difference between this and not having a God to help in the first place.

Well, we could say that, but we then assume without proof [faith] that no one has ever had a genuine encounter with the divine; including for example, Moses. Most religions teach of two opposing forces in the universe - good and evil. This is considered one of the basic "truths" revealed to us. So is this just a rationalization, or is this the most basic truth of all? Take your pick. Its all a matter of faith.

No I don't. My schizophrenic friend has constant conversations with the "people around him, and also with God'' when he doesn't take his medication. Either the pills he takes are 'anti-god' pills or they make him more rational...

That is just one example. There are plenty of people who claim to have experienced one or a few inexplicable events, such as visits from a dead relative, but who are healthy, otherwise normal individuals.

Also, there are many claims of miracles in the world today. My email inbox is full of claims for missing millions in Nigeria, penis extensions, get-rich schemes etc Are these claims true merely because the person claiming them says so? Or should I apply scientific method to what they claim? In Science, a majority belief or claim does NOT become true merely because most people state it.

No it certainly doesn't. But I can also find plenty of crooked sales people. Does that mean that all sales people are crooks? Do internet claims of perpetual motion machines invalidate all of physics? By your logic it would. You can find scams associated with just about any subject.

So basically you want a REASON for your life so you invent God? Do you actually believe in free will? Is your life really totally mapped out? If it is all planned out, where is free will? Without free will there is no sin, no evil, no good... So therefore no way to follow God's guidance as you have no choice... So, all the sh*t in your life is a 'gift' of God! Great stuff.. let's get praying!

That would be your religion, not mine.

 

[Bladibla]

Why should we *need* to prove something that is a figment of our imagination? Whether he *is* real or not, we are saying such thing exists, and anthropomorphic opinions are of dung-worth.

Obsurd question, i would say.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Why should we *need* to prove something that is a figment of our imagination? Whether he *is* real or not, we are saying such thing exists, and anthropomorphic opinions are of dung-worth.

Obsurd question, i would say.

It could be seen as an absurd question, but I think it raises interesting issues. If you read Adrian Baker's comments (and a few other who've posted in this thread), you can see they cannot separate the question of some sort of creationary consciousness existing from the practices and devices of religion. You throw out assumptions too such as God being merely imagination or anthropomorphic projection. How do you objectively contemplate an unknown if you assume you already know the truth about it?

Here we are participating at a site packed with educated and studying individuals, a site dedicated to knowledge and intelligence, yet where you see otherwise very smart people suddenly turn opinionated lightning fast when the subject of God comes up. And make no mistake about it, being opinionated is a kind of ignorance because it means one's learning door is slammed shut, and also usually that the opinion is a generalization formed from prejudices created by specific negative experiences.

Ivan Seeking mentioned Moses . . . and contrasting the original spiritual guy with what developed later is one way to distinguish between types of reports about God. If you study the range of conscious experiences humans have had over the last 3000 years, there is one which has impressed a great many people. This experience is reported in such a way that it sounds like the person's consciousness has joined some greater consciousness (e.g., Jesus says "I and my Father are One"). When people met individuals having this experience, often they would listen or follow them around trying to have a bit of experience for themselves.

But once the high guy dies, and along with it the most powerful living example of the experience, then with each succeeding generation the experience fades. As the experience fades, people try to find ways to get inspired, but not knowing how to have the experience themselves, start developing substitute experiences.

I believe that is what religion is, all the stuff built up over the centuries attempting to recreate some sense of the original experience in the absence of the original guy who realized it. So whatever it was that Moses or Jesus or the Buddha et al experienced, I don't think much of it is found in organized religion.

As a few people here know, I've made a 30 year study of the experience (i.e., JUST the experience, sans all religion) trying to understand what it is, and I personally believe there is something to it. There have been a lot of people devoted to practicing it through a special type of meditation or inner prayer often referred to as union.

However, whether or not there's something worthwhile to union is a different issue from if the experience really is of some greater consciousness. People discussing the possibility of a creationary consciousness who've not experienced union themselves, or without even studying the history of it, or without the sense of it faith can give . . . are reduced considering the logic of God's existence.

Logic-wise we might ask, does creation need a conscious creator? In other words, if we define creator as whatever it is that brought about creation, then the "creator" is what it takes to account for all that we know to exist. Physicalists say physics alone can account for everything, so physicalness to them is the creator. But physicalists cannot yet account for either the quality of organization that originated life, or consciousness. So it might be that the creationary forces have more to them than pure physicalness and mechanics.

Getting back to your point that trying to prove God is absurd, and mine that it might be but it still raises interesting issues. . . summing up I'd say it reveals 1) how intelligent people often cannot talk about the creator subject intelligently because of prejudices toward religion, 2) that people are generally ignorant about the most reliable experience we have that "something more" might exist (i.e., union experience), and 3) that the only investigative-type questions we can really get anywhere with are if union experience has relevance, and/or if we need some sort of creationary consciousness to help account for what we know to exist in creation.

 

[Bladibla]

You throw out assumptions too such as God being merely imagination or anthropomorphic projection. How do you objectively contemplate an unknown if you assume you already know the truth about it?

I didn't say i knew the truth about it. But the truth (note, not *my* knowledge of truth) is, god *is* a anthropomorphic and yes, pure figment of our imagination. Otherwise, where is the unbiased proof of god? Do we see any recognized communication with god? Based on a pure scientific point of view (although there are varying degrees of thought within science, i agree), a pure hypothesis (god) based without any evidence is worthless.

Here we are participating at a site packed with educated and studying individuals, a site dedicated to knowledge and intelligence, yet where you see otherwise very smart people suddenly turn opinionated lightning fast when the subject of God comes up. And make no mistake about it, being opinionated is a kind of ignorance because it means one's learning door is slammed shut, and also usually that the opinion is a generalization formed from prejudices created by specific negative experiences.

But beyond the context of this forum, this isn't true. There are many highly intelligent and knowledged people in this world now, and in the past. Even famous physicists (who you say are opinionated in this god-discussion) such as keplar, Newton and co were devoutly religious, at least from what we can see from historical contexts. It is not necessary to say that people who practise science in a professional manner and atheist ARE atheist because of a bad experience. Humans arn't born with the knowledge of god, and therefore, for whatever reason, a scientist or ANY other person can acknowledge of deny the existence of god. This by no means means that you cannot make a discussion now, but to make a everlasting conclusion, which from what we have seen up to this time is the useful information, waiting is what we have to do.



There are many truths humans don't know about, or at least not now. Is this to say that there is a greater conscious known as god? Not necessarily. The human race is always learning, evolving, and developing. Scientifically it is not possible to know our futures, and with little extrapolation of the data we have now, we can hypothesise what *could* happen, e.g. progression in genetic research. (this applies to all aspects of science and society though). So until we have scientifically gathered all information, ALL information our brain allows to understand, from science to literature to whatever, *then* we can discuss the possible existence of god.

Getting back to your point that trying to prove God is absurd, and mine that it might be but it still raises interesting issues. . . summing up I'd say it reveals 1) how intelligent people often cannot talk about the creator subject intelligently because of prejudices toward religion, 2) that people are generally ignorant about the most reliable experience we have that "something more" might exist (i.e., union experience), and 3) that the only investigative-type questions we can really get anywhere with are if union experience has relevance, and/or if we need some sort of creationary consciousness to help account for what we know to exist in creation

This as i said before, just is not true. Its not as if this forum is the whole world, MANY knowledgeable people are religious and 'unopinionated'.
It is VERY ironic and misleading for you to say that 'only investigative people can really get anywhere..'. Arn't we discussing God now? Whether i like him or not, and whether you disagree with me or not, we are wasting at least some time on this post. Me writing this post now, and you writing your post. And its not as if people in science just play around with numbers and chemicals all the time. Who are we kidding here? Scientists ALWAYS are in research, and give answers to these kind of questions without becoming degenerative scum.

 

[Yank]

Nope, I can't disprove that there is at least some form of god. I think you can tell a few things about what that god is like if it does exist by looking at the universe, but that's about it. Anyway...

"Can you prove god's non-existance?"

The word God in this question can be switched with absolutely anything your imagination can come up with that MIGHT exist. There are an infinite number of undisprovable things, but only a few provable ones in comparison. Because of this, it's the job of those who do believe in god to prove his existence before anybody should accept it. Also, of course, not being able to disprove something proves nothing. From a "logical" standpoint, I have to wonder, why start with god? Why not try to prove the existence of some of the other infinite things we have no evidence for, but that MIGHT exist, first? Why even bother with any of them? Until there is some evidence for something, there's no point in wasting any thought on whether it exists or not IMO. It'll never lead anywhere.

 

[pbj59]

deity

First, I like to play devils advocate in discussions like this, so don't take my writings on this too serious.
Since I have never personally met Jesus or his father, I couldn't say whether he was right or wrong. Can you? It really is all based on pure blind faith. But, what exactly do you have faith in? Everything we think we know about Christianity ( and most other " religions" ) has been written by humans who are prone to manipulate information to suit their agenda's. Consider comparing it to other knowledge of the day. We turn our souls and happiness over to a religion based on writings from 2000 years ago. Would you go to the hospital having a heart attack and let them use medical treatments from that era? How about geography? Let's use a map from 5 AD to get to Paris from Detroit? Should be an easy, since america is really part of asia and we should be able to see it from here- the world was flat then. Religion can't hold up to scientific scrutiny, it was never meant to be that. It gives you things to feel guilty about. If you feel too guilty when you die, you prob won't get to heaven. Thats the way it seems to be written.
Religion works for you if you really believe it. Thats what's important in the end. Dont see how Gods existence could be proved or dis-proved without Gods participation.

So Jesus (if you are a christian) was wrong? Hmmm... odd that for a deity!

 

[Swampeast Mike]

Could the existence of God be disproved by providing a rational basis for "god-like" phenomenon?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Could the existence of God be disproved by providing a rational basis for "god-like" phenomenon?

Can you give an example of what you mean?

 

[Jameson]

2) that people are generally ignorant about the most reliable experience we have that "something more" might exist (i.e., union experience)

That is where I usually have disagreements with people. Having an experience may be a great way to justify something to one's self, because you yourself went through it, but to everyone else I wouldn't say is credible. I can't understand your experience (I mean you in a general sense) and I just don't see how that can be used as an explanation.

People have weird feelings all of the time. We all worry about our loved ones. We all think of the worst case scenarios in our head and dread them, only to find out most of the time nothing bad happened. But what I've noticed is that the few times someone has one of these feelings and it does happen, that's all he/she can remember. It's like God spoke to that person and gave him/her a message.

Personally, and I know this is not a happy way to look at it, I think people's feelings and personal "experiences" cloud judgment and rational thinking.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Personally, and I know this is not a happy way to look at it, I think people's feelings and personal "experiences" cloud judgment and rational thinking.

That is certainly true, however, this is also true of personal bias - the need to believe that their is no God.

 

[Jameson]

Right, biases cloud open minded thinking. No disagreement there.

When I get in discussions with people about religion, what makes me want to get up and leave is when the other person says, "I just know." That's what I was talking about. Relying on personal "experiences" or feelings to justify something otherwise irrational.

Of course this comment is biased by my own personal views. I think it's impossible to write an opinion that's unbiased.

 

[totallyclueless]

Perhaps we are one tiny organism living inside of another organism? Just a thought. I mean, look at a cell. To whatever lives in a cell, it would seem to huge and infinate and unexplainable. But to us, it's so small you have to look at it with a microscope! I mean, an atom. Smallest building block of life. But what makes up an atom? And what makes up that? and what makes up that? and so on and so forth. do you get what I am saying?

 

[Swampeast Mike]

Can you give an example of what you mean?

Infinite examples should this be true.

Photons are the result and consequence of matter that is shared between separated bodies.

 

[Chronos]

Shouldn't this be a philosophy thread? I'm more accustomed to addressing unexplained phenomenon, unusual observations and outlandish interpretations in this niche of the forum.

 

[Les Sleeth]

That is where I usually have disagreements with people. Having an experience may be a great way to justify something to one's self, because you yourself went through it, but to everyone else I wouldn't say is credible. I can't understand your experience (I mean you in a general sense) and I just don't see how that can be used as an explanation.

Okay, but let's put things in context before getting off on stuff I didn't mean to say.

We are talking about proving the existence of God, and I think everyone generally accepts that the meaning of "proof" as used for this thread means empirical proof. Empirical proof has standards which must be met, and one of those is that whatever is proposed to exist must be "observable."

What does observable mean? It means to use the senses to directly witness either an event or indications by machinery designed to magnify or otherwise expose something beyond direct observation; also implicitly implied is that not only can you observe it, others must be able to as well.

The relevant points are: 1) all empirical proofs are dependent on sense data, and 2)whatever can be observed with the senses must be external to consciousness.

The senses give consciousness sense experience. With the senses we "feel" temperature and pressure on the skin, and in a way we "feel" smells, tastes, sounds and sights too in the sense of our nerves being sensitive to such information. To understand where I'm going with all this it's important to see that the signals senses carry are one thing, and what happens when they reach consciousness is another. Consciousness is what "experiences" and the senses are avenues set up to feed consciousness info from the outside world.

If we clearly distinguish between what can stimulate experience, and experience itself, then we might ask: Is consciousness capable of any other type of experience besides sense experience?

For example, if there were a way to remove sensory input, say even beyond what sensory deprivation devices achieve, is there anything left to experience? You might say there's the intellect and emotions. Okay, let's say we could turn them off too. In that rare inner silence, is anything left NOW to experience?

First, if there is, you cannot find out until you achieve that silence. Second, if there is, that experience happens from within experience itself, and so by definition it cannot be externalized for others to observe. If you experience something in that silence over and over for many years, you might have proven to yourself something, but you will never be able to prove to others you experience something there.

And you know what. . . who cares? If I have to wait until I can convince the world, or you or anybody that my inner experience is trustworthy, then I'll be nothing but a big mass of self doubt.

So the way such "inner" proofs work is, I prove it to myself, you prove it to yourself, Ivan proves it to himself . . . If you are someone who has faith in that inner thing, then you will work at strengthening that certainty by pursuing inner experinece; and you aren't going to waste your time trying to empirically prove something that is neither experienced with the senses nor externalizable.

People have weird feelings all of the time. We all worry about our loved ones. We all think of the worst case scenarios in our head and dread them, only to find out most of the time nothing bad happened. But what I've noticed is that the few times someone has one of these feelings and it does happen, that's all he/she can remember. It's like God spoke to that person and gave him/her a message.

You are talking about mental confusion. Just because someone attributes something to God doesn't mean they know anything about God, or that somehow it's a reflection of everyone who says they experience God.

If someone says he has an invisible white cat, does that mean all people who claim to own a white cat are deluded? Joe McCarthy claimed to be a patriot. Does that mean John McCain, who claims to be a patriot, is just like him?

Personally, and I know this is not a happy way to look at it, I think people's feelings and personal "experiences" cloud judgment and rational thinking.

That doesn't make sense. You cannot possibly escape your personal experience. It is you every waking moment (and maybe even while you sleep). Take that away and you are nothing but a computer. Of course, that is one's right, and some people do seem so afraid to feel they choose to become like a computer.

When I get in discussions with people about religion. . .

Ahhh, but we weren't talking about religion, we were talking about God. And that was one of my points, that people can't seem to distinguish between the two.

. . . what makes me want to get up and leave is when the other person says, "I just know." That's what I was talking about. Relying on personal "experiences" or feelings to justify something otherwise irrational.

How do you know you love your mother? Do you "just know"? Can you prove it in a laboratory? If not, then is your love an illusion? Love isn't rational, love is a feeling and there are legitimate feelings and deluded feelings, just like there is rational thought and irrational thought. Why mix up the two realms (feeling and rationality)? They are completely different, each with its own rules for knowing.

 

[Jameson]

Thank you for your response.

As for the main part of your statement, I agree. Our personal experiences give us our perception of our reality. The point I was making is that some of these experiences can be validated by other means (math, science), and some cannot. When I say that I had an experience with God this could be valid, but someone else cannot vouch for that experience. It is completely within my own senses, not the senses of the universe like many common accepted things are.

You are talking about mental confusion. Just because someone attributes something to God doesn't mean they know anything about God, or that somehow it's a reflection of everyone who says they experience God.

If someone says he has an invisible white cat, does that mean all people who claim to own a white cat are deluded? Joe McCarthy claimed to be a patriot. Does that mean John McCain, who claims to be a patriot, is just like him?

Mental confusion was exactly my point. I believe that personal experiences lead to biases and irrational thinking. To further my statement, I would say that the fact that we have sense perceptions really makes it impossible to have an objective thought, but we can dwell into that more if you wish.

That doesn't make sense. You cannot possibly escape your personal experience. It is you every waking moment (and maybe even while you sleep). Take that away and you are nothing but a computer. Of course, that is one's right, and some people do seem so afraid to feel they choose to become like a computer.

Correct you are. The thing that seems to make us as humans so distinct from the rest of the animal kingdom are our complex thoughts, emotions, and importance of our personal experiences. I believe that this is our greatest attribute because it gives us independence, free thinking, and imagination, but I also consider it to be our greatest flaw. We could never think as rationally as a computer.

How do you know you love your mother? Do you "just know"? Can you prove it in a laboratory? If not, then is your love an illusion? Love isn't rational, love is a feeling and there are legitimate feelings and deluded feelings, just like there is rational thought and irrational thought. Why mix up the two realms (feeling and rationality)? They are completely different, each with its own rules for knowing.

I would love to talk about love for days, no pun intended. Just to post a little comment, I think the reason love is such a hard ground to debate on is because most people's definition of love is completely different from other's, which makes it hard to define generally. I would call love a combination of emotions felt for someone and the understanding of acceptance and forgiveness even when the person does not deserve it. I cannot prove my mother loves me, as I cannot prove many things, but I do not believe she loves me purely based on my senses, but more of what I see her do - her actions.

Ahhh, but we weren't talking about religion, we were talking about God. And that was one of my points, that people can't seem to distinguish between the two.

Sorry to not be clear, but I wasn't implying that you were talking about religion. I was merely giving a common example of personal experiences giving as a reason - faith versus other methods of knowledge.

Jameson

 

[zoobyshoe]

U might suspect this, but i was merely wondering if there is any science behind this suspicion. For instance any research that indicates meditation can indeed cause seizures, or even that breathing techniques can cause seizures. I suspect if these were the case, meditation would be banned by now.

As I said, the hallucinations that some beginners experience during meditation are ascribed by the roshis to poor breathing techiques. They instruct the novice to adjust their breathing accordingly.

Seizures can, indeed, be caused by anoxia, lack of oxygen, and also by hyperventilation. It is standard practise during an EEG to have the patient hyperventilate to see if this triggers any seizure activity that can be picked up by the electrodes.

In addition, seizures seem to arise most easily during sleep, or during periods of rest after exertion. Part of the EEG involves telling the patient to relax as much as possible and calm their mental activity in so far as they can, much as a person does in meditation, to see if this produces any seizure activity.

Meditation isn't banned because, if people are having seizures from meditation, they're never more serious than simple partials, which most people in the general population already have once in a while anyway. In general the benefits of it outweight any risk of seizure harm. The focus and discipline the meditator acquires, and the general mental calm they can bring from it to their daily lives, is really what it's all about.

I do not think this example is relevant. U talk about it being "the best case against jumping to the conclusion that everything that comes out of meditation is automatically good".

The relevance is that a pathology was mistaken for enlightement.

Well first of all, of course not everything that comes out of meditation will be good. (there must be some bad side effects )

Some people get serious hemorroids, yes.

Secondly, the fact that this guy developed a brain-tumor, cannot be seen as a result of the meditation itself, neither can the fact that it was discovered too late.

No one is blaming the brain tumor on the meditation. Don't erect straw men.

The fact is wasn't discovered earlier was, in fact, directly related to the meditation. It was a bunch of idiot amateurs who didn't know what they were doing, and couldn't tell the difference between his odd behavior and an enlightenment.

Thirdly, the link between braintumor and the sensation of enlightenment cannot solidly be demonstrated by this case.

The connection between his feelings of bliss and the brain tumor are not in any doubt whatever. It is the typical symptom of frontal lobe syndrome.

Im sure there have been people that meditated while having a migraine, a headache, an ear-infection, or a broken leg for that matter.

I'm sure there have, but what do these have to do with anything?

 

[eNathan]

That is where I usually have disagreements with people. Having an experience may be a great way to justify something to one's self, because you yourself went through it, but to everyone else I wouldn't say is credible. I can't understand your experience (I mean you in a general sense) and I just don't see how that can be used as an explanation.

People have weird feelings all of the time. We all worry about our loved ones. We all think of the worst case scenarios in our head and dread them, only to find out most of the time nothing bad happened. But what I've noticed is that the few times someone has one of these feelings and it does happen, that's all he/she can remember. It's like God spoke to that person and gave him/her a message.

Personally, and I know this is not a happy way to look at it, I think people's feelings and personal "experiences" cloud judgment and rational thinking.

you cannot prove God exists based on someone else's experience, I fully understand it when people say that. Alot of people, however, claim they have had some sort of experience with God. It is hard to say from a scientific aspect weather or not God exists. I personally believe there is a devine being that exists. Yes, I am a Christian, but do I claim to know that God exsits with 100% assurity, not at all. I know its still theoretical, that's why we call it "faith", not "fact". Although some people may say its "blind faith", but I don't agree with this notion.

I guess only you can judge weather or not God exists. In my opinion, its imposible to be a true atheiest beacuse you cannot prove God doesn't exist. And you can't say he doesn't exists just because you don't want him to exists.

 

[zoobyshoe]

1. I have also read some accounts of people that walk around with these experiences for long periods(hours/days/months). How long do seizures generally last?

The briefest seizure lasts just a split second. The longest recorded seizure I've ever read about lasted something over 18 years.

Anyone who has epilepsy (recurring seizures) is at risk of going into a seizure that won't stop without medical intervention. A condition of constant seizing like this is called status epilepticus. It is not rare.

2. Also, what are the actual symptoms of seizures? Surely, hallucinations alone are not the only symptom (the case which u described (Dostoevsky) for instance, also saw an aura).

You misunderstood. In epilepsy an "aura" is the simple partial seizure that preceeds a more serious seizure. During the "aura" the person is fully conscious and aware of their surroundings, although they will be having some peculiar experience or another depending on where the seizure focus is in their brain. When the seizure progresses, their consciousness becomes clouded, or they may be completely unconscious, and they won't remember anything afterward except the aura.

The most common simple partial seizure symptoms are:

Intense fear or dread
Deja Vu (everything seems superfamiliar)
Jamais vu (familiar things seem strange and foreign)
Peculiar sensations in the stomach
Micropsia (things look smaller and farther away than they should)
Macropsia (things look bigger and closer than they should)

Less common are:
Uncontrolable crying
uncontrolable laughing
uncontrolable rage
feelings of euphoria
feelings of ecstasy

There are many more different ones having to do with the illusion of physical sensations, and also with autonomic symptoms, like profuse sweating, irregular heartbeat etc.

3. Also, many people who experience these things without meditation, only experience them once. Is there some kind of disease that causes once-in-a-lifetime seizures?

According to one survey, nearly 100% of the population reported having at least one simple partial seizure symptom. At least 1/3 of the people I know have had a deja vu at least once.

You don't need a disease to have a seizure. Seizures can result from temporary screw-ups in your hormones and/or brain chemistry due to bad diet, say, coupled with lack of sleep and stress.

4. And finally, these kind of experiences can be life-changing events for the experiencer. Do seizures cause permanent braindamage?

This question sounds sarcastic.

Anyway, yes, seizures can cause brain damage, in severe cases. If you go into status with a grand mal seizure you can die.

What is more to the point is that all seizures permanently change the responsiveness of neurons from normal to "touchy". Each seizure a person has makes it easier for the next seizure to occur. Once a neuron gets entrained into a seizure it "learns" to seize and has a lower seizure threshold: it will take somewhat less of a stimulus to set it off the next time.

 

[pbj59]

proof

Can some of you tell me what it you would accept as absolute proof without question that GOD exists? If that happened, do you think people would believe it 2000+ years from now? Even if it is documented by several different people?

 

[Chronos]

If God writes me a check for 1,000,000 and it clears the bank... I will believe.

 

[godzilla7]

I saw a tv program about how spiritual feelings can under the right conditions be felt by anyone, in the program they got a group of subjects from all over the religous spectrum to test their spirituality or aptness to experience feelings of spirituality. Even the most ardent sceptics could sometimes be made to feel a sense of being in the presence of something god like(this was done by stimulating certain areas of the brain). This suggested that the brain throughout it's evolution has become hard wired to be spiritual, and the programme went on to say that there has been some evolutionary advantage to belief systems. Bonding communities, establishing rules for the common good etc, etc. for me this moves me towards a disbelief in God, and this is just a product of evolution ,but then I can not dismiss that it may not of been God's plan to have us find him.

Atheism for me is too much hard work as is belief in God, sounds lazy but if I cop out and say I just don't know it saves me the mental effort of finding or losing god. Effort I can use to learn about the important things.

Life is absurd and has no real objective meaning(I think Camus and Sartre had this right although, I think Camus: enjoy and live forever idea was better than Sartres: life's pointless suicidal bent) if that's the case why even bother look for God, let's just enjoy the moments, here and now in the finite fragment that is life, and leave the bigger issues to God, let him work out whether he exists or not, I'm sure when he's come to any firm conclusions he'll let us know

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Therefore, for example, if the brain can be stimulated in such a way that one hears a sound, we can conclude that there is no such thing as real sound? Mental illness aside, that these spiritual experiences can be duplicated in the lab only shows that the perception of these experiences can be real - claims as such are not necessarily false memories or lies. It doesn't imply that no genuine experiences are found; only that the claimed state of mind, or the perception of this experience is possible.