Searching for GOD...

[Outrider]

That looks like circular thinking; you use your belief in God to justify your belief in God, ultimately. I prefer to be evidence-led, to be true to evidence, and that means keeping an open mind about what insights future research will bring.  It seems to me that your God beliefs have frozen you out of that possibility, you are locked into a circle of belief that already denies even the possibility of new insights from research even before they have had a chance to happen..

But it if you insist on relying only on scientific evidence you are effectively freezing out the possibility of anything existing outside the realms of scientific discovery.

Science is the only reliable way of determining what is true and what is not that we have.  If you have a method of finding out whether things outside scientific discovery are true or not, fine, let's hear it.

Although I warn you that we are having a very similar discussion on another thread and the theists are failing miserably to come up with a credible response.

That's funny, The philosophical naturalists are having a similar issue on another thread.

Please provide a methodology showing how science settles and concludes ontology.

You show us yours and we'll show you ours. You're long overdue, and we've done plenty of hoop-jumping as a part of your argument Vlad ignorum technique.

What's your methodology for establishing your 'experience of a god' is not an hallucination?

O.

Hallucinations are sensory though. which class of hallucination do you think?

Feel free to specify in the methodology that is presumably imminent how you differentiate from any number of variants of hallucination that you'd like. Just one would do, to be honest, as a start.

O.

[torridon]

Who gets to define the limits of 'scientific' discovery ? It's not like when we were at school, and science meant physics/biology/chemistry; science is continually broadening its remit. If it can be studied, observed, tested, then it will come under the scrutiny of science sooner or later.

Science is by definition limited to what human senses can perceive.  The fact that humans are able to think outside the box to imagine a spiritual dimension is in itself an indication that there is more to reality than what our basic senses perceive.  Humans have been given an appetite for delving into spiritual matters, and I believe that our creator has revealed to us the reason we have been brought into existence.

Science extends our innate perception abilities. We build microscopes to look at little things, telescopes to look at things far away, we build scanners to look inside people and we build particle detectors to test theories of matter. Science doesn't restrict human investigation it broadens it and empowers it and if you think scientists don't think outside the box I guess you haven't come across string theory, or quantum electrodynamics or cosmology.  Mind bending, far out stuff man, pass the spliff.

[Alan Burns]

Humans have been given an appetite for delving into spiritual matters, and I believe that our creator has revealed to us the reason we have been brought into existence.

Given by whom? You're back into the realms of a circular argument. The deduction that pattern recognition (an established trait in many animals, humans amongst them) already gives us an explanation for the concept of gods that doesn't require the assumption of actual gods.

O.

The animals (apart from humans) which show evidence of pattern recognition show no evidence of belief in anything spiritual, so I do not see how you link this to a concept of Gods.

I do not see how the ability to think about spiritual matters could have come from a material source, so it is a natural assumption that it came from a supernatural source - our creator.

Delving further, I would say that even the ability to think about anything is itself a spiritual quality, because thoughts themselves are not definable in material terms.

[Outrider]

The animals (apart from humans) which show evidence of pattern recognition show no evidence of belief in anything spiritual, so I do not see how you link this to a concept of Gods.

We don't know what conclusions, if any, they draw from their pattern recognition. The hypothesis runs that, in the absence of explanations for identifiable patterns, humans tend to assume conscious agency - this has been tested by putting children into various situations to see what their conclusions are.

I do not see how the ability to think about spiritual matters could have come from a material source, so it is a natural assumption that it came from a supernatural source - our creator.

No, it's a natural assumption to say 'I don't know'. To posit supernatural because of your (or my, or anyone else's) limited understanding is a false leap.

Delving further, I would say that even the ability to think about anything is itself a spiritual quality, because thoughts themselves are not definable in material terms.

Apart from as patterns of bioelectrical activity in the neurons of the brain, you mean?

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That looks like circular thinking; you use your belief in God to justify your belief in God, ultimately. I prefer to be evidence-led, to be true to evidence, and that means keeping an open mind about what insights future research will bring.  It seems to me that your God beliefs have frozen you out of that possibility, you are locked into a circle of belief that already denies even the possibility of new insights from research even before they have had a chance to happen..

But it if you insist on relying only on scientific evidence you are effectively freezing out the possibility of anything existing outside the realms of scientific discovery.

Science is the only reliable way of determining what is true and what is not that we have.  If you have a method of finding out whether things outside scientific discovery are true or not, fine, let's hear it.

Although I warn you that we are having a very similar discussion on another thread and the theists are failing miserably to come up with a credible response.

That's funny, The philosophical naturalists are having a similar issue on another thread.

Please provide a methodology showing how science settles and concludes ontology.

You show us yours and we'll show you ours. You're long overdue, and we've done plenty of hoop-jumping as a part of your argument Vlad ignorum technique.

What's your methodology for establishing your 'experience of a god' is not an hallucination?

O.

Hallucinations are sensory though. which class of hallucination do you think?

Feel free to specify in the methodology that is presumably imminent how you differentiate from any number of variants of hallucination that you'd like. Just one would do, to be honest, as a start.

O.

Take your pick

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallucination

[Outrider]

Take your pick

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallucination

No, you apparently fail to understand. YOU take YOUR pick, then demonstrate how YOUR methodology demonstrates that YOU can justify the claim that YOUR alleged experience of a god is something other than an hallucination.

I'd suggest, for thoroughness, a methodology that removes all of the options, but it's your choice.

O.

[Dicky Underpants]

And yet there must be a mechanism which leads to accuracy in catching but which we are not conscious of working.

And the mechanism is mathematical, but that does not make mathematics a thing that can be sensed, it still makes it a conceptualisation with which other sensory impressions can be categorised.

O.

Are you saying it is not a sense because it is not one of the five senses?

Five? There are a range of counts between twenty and thirty-five that I found in a quick search.

I'm saying it's not a sense because a sense is the body's measurable reaction to a quantifiable external stimulus.

In the absence of a means to determine if the stimulus exists, there's no way to determine if what you have is a sensory organ being triggered or an hallucination which you are interpreting as a 'sensation' in the absence of any conceptual framework with which to categorise that particular brain activity.

O.

Well I think you are mistaking religious experience as sensory hallucination. Still how could it be different? You strike me as a materialist unable to think outside the box.

You appear to be telling us that there is something quite distinct about 'religious experience' which puts it in a completely different category from all other unusual mental experience. Now a glance through William James "Varieties of Religious Experience" soon demonstrates that this is not so. Reviewing a lot of the recorded literature of such experiences - beginning with Ezekiel - reinforces the fact that such experiences are incredibly varied in nature, and I'd be interested in knowing your methodology for sifting the true 'spiritual' from the simply hallucinatory or indeed pathological in all this panoroma of unusual psychological states. One 'saint' of the Catholic canon apparently was considered holy because she experienced religious extasies while licking up the shit of lepers and others stricken with serious physical diseases. I presume you're not suggesting that such clear evidence of human pathology was really an indication that she was so imbued with the Holy Spirit that everything became sanctified? Holy Shit!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

One 'saint' of the Catholic canon apparently was considered holy because she experienced religious extasies while licking up the shit of lepers and others stricken with serious physical diseases. I presume you're not suggesting that such clear evidence of human pathology was really an indication that she was so imbued with the Holy Spirit that everything became sanctified? Holy Shit!

Standard practice in Anglican matins and evensong......Get yourself down their mate.
We're all aware of those ads in the War Cry and the Tablet for Leper shit.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Take your pick

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallucination

No, you apparently fail to understand. YOU take YOUR pick, then demonstrate how YOUR methodology demonstrates that YOU can justify the claim that YOUR alleged experience of a god is something other than an hallucination.

I'd suggest, for thoroughness, a methodology that removes all of the options, but it's your choice.

O.

I don't recall you establishing it IS an hallucination since you first brought it up.
Or are you saying it must naturally be an hallucination? I think this is a typical shoehorn situation but I have referenced an article for you to help you with demonstrating religious experience is an hallucination.

And the concomitant inference that we are mental.

[ippy]

That looks like circular thinking; you use your belief in God to justify your belief in God, ultimately. I prefer to be evidence-led, to be true to evidence, and that means keeping an open mind about what insights future research will bring.  It seems to me that your God beliefs have frozen you out of that possibility, you are locked into a circle of belief that already denies even the possibility of new insights from research even before they have had a chance to happen..

But it if you insist on relying only on scientific evidence you are effectively freezing out the possibility of anything existing outside the realms of scientific discovery.

Science is the only reliable way of determining what is true and what is not that we have.  If you have a method of finding out whether things outside scientific discovery are true or not, fine, let's hear it.

Although I warn you that we are having a very similar discussion on another thread and the theists are failing miserably to come up with a credible response.

That's funny, The philosophical naturalists are having a similar issue on another thread.

Please provide a methodology showing how science settles and concludes ontology.

You show us yours and we'll show you ours. You're long overdue, and we've done plenty of hoop-jumping as a part of your argument Vlad ignorum technique.

What's your methodology for establishing your 'experience of a god' is not an hallucination?

O.

Outlander, I hadn't realised the depths of thought you are capable of, like your post, I nearly fell off of my perch laughing.

ippy 

[Alan Burns]

Apart from as patterns of bioelectrical activity in the neurons of the brain, you mean?

O.

The bioelectrical activity in the neurons of the brain is in essence just the movement of electrons.  Human scientific observation can be used to recognise them as patterns, but these patterns only exist in human perception.  And what is it that perceives and interprets them as thoughts?

[ippy]

Apart from as patterns of bioelectrical activity in the neurons of the brain, you mean?

O.

The bioelectrical activity in the neurons of the brain is in essence just the movement of electrons.  Human scientific observation can be used to recognise them as patterns, but these patterns only exist in human perception.  And what is it that perceives and interprets them as thoughts?

This bioelectrical activity wouldn't have anything to do with dynamic energy?__________Would it?

ippy

[Leonard James]

Apart from as patterns of bioelectrical activity in the neurons of the brain, you mean?

O.

The bioelectrical activity in the neurons of the brain is in essence just the movement of electrons.  Human scientific observation can be used to recognise them as patterns, but these patterns only exist in human perception.  And what is it that perceives and interprets them as thoughts?

The same part of the brain that interprets all sensory stimuli.

[Outrider]

I don't recall you establishing it IS an hallucination since you first brought it up.

So far, I don't need to, as you've not given us any methodology to think there's a reason to assume that your claim is anything else.

Or are you saying it must naturally be an hallucination? I think this is a typical shoehorn situation but I have referenced an article for you to help you with demonstrating religious experience is an hallucination.

I'm not saying it 'must be' anything. It sounds like an hallucination, a well-documented natural phenomenon. If you want to claim it's something else, explain how you justify that claim.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I don't recall you establishing it IS an hallucination since you first brought it up.

So far, I don't need to, as you've not given us any methodology to think there's a reason to assume that your claim is anything else.

Or are you saying it must naturally be an hallucination? I think this is a typical shoehorn situation but I have referenced an article for you to help you with demonstrating religious experience is an hallucination.

I'm not saying it 'must be' anything. It sounds like an hallucination, a well-documented natural phenomenon. If you want to claim it's something else, explain how you justify that claim.

O.

yes it may be a well documented phenomenon but you haven't, even in the face of being provided with a useful classification talked about which type or types. In other words since you have admitted you are assuming Hallucination you need to prove that it is.

Please explain why it is a hallucination because to my mind it doesn't fit the categories.

Therefore it has to be something else.

[torridon]

Apart from as patterns of bioelectrical activity in the neurons of the brain, you mean?

O.

The bioelectrical activity in the neurons of the brain is in essence just the movement of electrons.  Human scientific observation can be used to recognise them as patterns, but these patterns only exist in human perception.  And what is it that perceives and interprets them as thoughts?

Patterns of neural activity in the brain and inner feelings are one and the same thing, we know this from brain imaging studies. This technology gives us an external window allowing empirical study of inner sensations. The Cartesian idea that there must be some 'being' inside us inhabiting our body is 400 years out of date, and has found no validation through modern research.  Time to let it go Alan, it's spurious.

[Outrider]

I don't recall you establishing it IS an hallucination since you first brought it up.

So far, I don't need to, as you've not given us any methodology to think there's a reason to assume that your claim is anything else.

Or are you saying it must naturally be an hallucination? I think this is a typical shoehorn situation but I have referenced an article for you to help you with demonstrating religious experience is an hallucination.

I'm not saying it 'must be' anything. It sounds like an hallucination, a well-documented natural phenomenon. If you want to claim it's something else, explain how you justify that claim.

O.

yes it may be a well documented phenomenon but you haven't, even in the face of being provided with a useful classification talked about which type or types. In other words since you have admitted you are assuming Hallucination you need to prove that it is.

Please explain why it is a hallucination because to my mind it doesn't fit the categories.

Therefore it has to be something else.

No, I don't need to do anything. Hallucinations are a well known, if not common, phenomenon that have been demonstrated to a reasonable degree of confidence to occur. I'm sure they come in a variety of slightly different types, that's not my issue.

You've described something that sounds like an hallucination. In order to justify saying that it's something else, you have to explain your methodology. If you demonstrate that it's not any of the currently recognised hallucinations you still need to demonstrate why we shouldn't classify it as a new type of hallucination rather than an 'experience of god'.

You're making the claim, the onus is on you to convince.

O.

[Outrider]

The bioelectrical activity in the neurons of the brain is in essence just the movement of electrons.  Human scientific observation can be used to recognise them as patterns, but these patterns only exist in human perception.  And what is it that perceives and interprets them as thoughts?

What makes you think anything 'perceives'? What makes you think that perception isn't another flow of electrons in a bioneural process?

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I don't recall you establishing it IS an hallucination since you first brought it up.

So far, I don't need to, as you've not given us any methodology to think there's a reason to assume that your claim is anything else.

Or are you saying it must naturally be an hallucination? I think this is a typical shoehorn situation but I have referenced an article for you to help you with demonstrating religious experience is an hallucination.

I'm not saying it 'must be' anything. It sounds like an hallucination, a well-documented natural phenomenon. If you want to claim it's something else, explain how you justify that claim.

O.

yes it may be a well documented phenomenon but you haven't, even in the face of being provided with a useful classification talked about which type or types. In other words since you have admitted you are assuming Hallucination you need to prove that it is.

Please explain why it is a hallucination because to my mind it doesn't fit the categories.

Therefore it has to be something else.

No, I don't need to do anything. Hallucinations are a well known, if not common, phenomenon that have been demonstrated to a reasonable degree of confidence to occur. I'm sure they come in a variety of slightly different types, that's not my issue.

You've described something that sounds like an hallucination. In order to justify saying that it's something else, you have to explain your methodology. If you demonstrate that it's not any of the currently recognised hallucinations you still need to demonstrate why we shouldn't classify it as a new type of hallucination rather than an 'experience of god'.

You're making the claim, the onus is on you to convince.

O.

It's as simple as this Outrider. You have said that religious experience sounds like an hallucination. Not to me it doesn't. You have made a positive assertion you are bound to tell me which hallucination you think religious experience is. Secondly, and highly suggestive of you not doing your spade work,you have hedged by suggesting this is a new hallucination. On what grounds do you propose to classify it as a new class? In other words let's see your working out.

You don't have the default position since you have suggested it is an hallucination. You made the claim and I didn't .

I look forward to your proof.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The bioelectrical activity in the neurons of the brain is in essence just the movement of electrons.  Human scientific observation can be used to recognise them as patterns, but these patterns only exist in human perception.  And what is it that perceives and interprets them as thoughts?

What makes you think anything 'perceives'? What makes you think that perception isn't another flow of electrons in a bioneural process?

O.

Another illusion or hallucination.

What is being illuded?

Why can it not be a flow of electrons in a nioneural process and perception?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Apart from as patterns of bioelectrical activity in the neurons of the brain, you mean?

O.

The bioelectrical activity in the neurons of the brain is in essence just the movement of electrons.  Human scientific observation can be used to recognise them as patterns, but these patterns only exist in human perception.  And what is it that perceives and interprets them as thoughts?

Patterns of neural activity in the brain and inner feelings are one and the same thing, we know this from brain imaging studies. This technology gives us an external window allowing empirical study of inner sensations. The Cartesian idea that there must be some 'being' inside us inhabiting our body is 400 years out of date, and has found no validation through modern research.  Time to let it go Alan, it's spurious.

can you explain how the pattern becomes the qualia I believe it's called and why we are conscious of it.
Do you think computers are conscious because they also have flows of electrons in neural networks.

[Andy]

I don't recall you establishing it IS an hallucination since you first brought it up.

So far, I don't need to, as you've not given us any methodology to think there's a reason to assume that your claim is anything else.

Or are you saying it must naturally be an hallucination? I think this is a typical shoehorn situation but I have referenced an article for you to help you with demonstrating religious experience is an hallucination.

I'm not saying it 'must be' anything. It sounds like an hallucination, a well-documented natural phenomenon. If you want to claim it's something else, explain how you justify that claim.

O.

yes it may be a well documented phenomenon but you haven't, even in the face of being provided with a useful classification talked about which type or types. In other words since you have admitted you are assuming Hallucination you need to prove that it is.

Please explain why it is a hallucination because to my mind it doesn't fit the categories.

Therefore it has to be something else.

No, I don't need to do anything. Hallucinations are a well known, if not common, phenomenon that have been demonstrated to a reasonable degree of confidence to occur. I'm sure they come in a variety of slightly different types, that's not my issue.

You've described something that sounds like an hallucination. In order to justify saying that it's something else, you have to explain your methodology. If you demonstrate that it's not any of the currently recognised hallucinations you still need to demonstrate why we shouldn't classify it as a new type of hallucination rather than an 'experience of god'.

You're making the claim, the onus is on you to convince.

O.

It's as simple as this Outrider. You have said that religious experience sounds like an hallucination. Not to me it doesn't. You have made a positive assertion you are bound to tell me which hallucination you think religious experience is. Secondly, and highly suggestive of you not doing your spade work,you have hedged by suggesting this is a new hallucination. On what grounds do you propose to classify it as a new class? In other words let's see your working out.

You don't have the default position since you have suggested it is an hallucination. You made the claim and I didn't .

I look forward to your proof.

Sitting on the fence here but if I could just make the point that even if it is hallucination, that says nothing either way of whether the supernatural is the cause of the hallucination or not.

[Outrider]

It's as simple as this Outrider.

It's as simple as this - you keep putting the onus on everyone else to disprove your unevidenced claim. That's not going to work, you make the claim, you need to back it up to be taken seriously.

You have said that religious experience sounds like an hallucination.

Yes.

Not to me it doesn't.

Why not? How did you come to that conclusion?

You have made a positive assertion you are bound to tell me which hallucination you think religious experience is.

No, I'm not. You've made the assertion that this is something undocumented, that this is not a previously identified and studied phenomenon. The onus is on you.

Secondly, and highly suggestive of you not doing your spade work,you have hedged by suggesting this is a new hallucination.

No, I've pointed out a potential false dichotomy I suspected you might go for. Demonstrating that this is not, in fact, one of the recognised forms of hallucination does not 'prove' this is an experience of a god, it just proves it's not one of the recognised forms of hallucination. You still need to provide a methodology to justify the claim of god.

You don't have the default position since you have suggested it is an hallucination. You made the claim and I didn't .

I look forward to your proof.

Keep trying, the ball is still firmly in your court to justify your claim that this is something other than a well-known, previously established phenomenon.

O.

[Outrider]

Why can it not be a flow of electrons in a nioneural process and perception?

No reason, but I'm not going to presume as such for no good reason.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It's as simple as this Outrider.

It's as simple as this - you keep putting the onus on everyone else to disprove your unevidenced claim. That's not going to work, you make the claim, you need to back it up to be taken seriously.

You have said that religious experience sounds like an hallucination.

Yes.

Not to me it doesn't.

Why not? How did you come to that conclusion?

You have made a positive assertion you are bound to tell me which hallucination you think religious experience is.

No, I'm not. You've made the assertion that this is something undocumented, that this is not a previously identified and studied phenomenon. The onus is on you.

Secondly, and highly suggestive of you not doing your spade work,you have hedged by suggesting this is a new hallucination.

No, I've pointed out a potential false dichotomy I suspected you might go for. Demonstrating that this is not, in fact, one of the recognised forms of hallucination does not 'prove' this is an experience of a god, it just proves it's not one of the recognised forms of hallucination. You still need to provide a methodology to justify the claim of god.

You don't have the default position since you have suggested it is an hallucination. You made the claim and I didn't .

I look forward to your proof.

Keep trying, the ball is still firmly in your court to justify your claim that this is something other than a well-known, previously established phenomenon.

O.

No, you say it's an hallucination. That is a positive claim. I look forward to your proof.

In terms of my points that the supernatural is unfalsifiable scientifically, that unique historical events like miracles are not susceptible to scientific investigation, that numerous people were convinced that jesus had been resurrected, that reductionist materialists tend to cordon off the resurrection on philosophical grounds and not make a very close examination of the NT accounts I have demonstrated by philosophical argument and citation(sorry about the inability to provide the T-Shirt and baseball cap). There is bags more argument to be had but that is enough to be getting on with considering the failed analysis by your team and it's refusal to provide an alternative history.

So all you have to do is to demonstrate your positive assertion that religion is hallucination.