Searching for GOD...

[Dicky Underpants]

You are trying to exonerate yourself from your positive assertion that religious experience is hallucination. And are basically saying a theist always has to have burden of proof when making a positive assertion but an antitheist does not. That is clearly special pleading.

No, you're still trying to put the onus on anyone else to disprove your unsubstantiated contention 'god'.

This guy isn't going to explain why he asserts religion is hallucination.....
Can anybody?

Your terms are still extremely vague. "Religion" covers a vast area of human experience, from its various forms of practice, ritual etc, to the area I thought we were discussing here, which is the validity or not of specifically 'spiritual experience', and to be quite precise about it, the validity of your claim to have experienced God.
Instead, you persistently try to deflect the argument by attempting to delineate the defects of 'naturalism'.
This is not the issue - it is for you to demonstrate why we should accept your claim for having personal knowledge of God as being something that can be accepted as valid, beyond the simple fact that you have asserted it.
I have referred to "The Varieties of Religious Experience" before, and there are indeed vast numbers of experiences which have been variously interpreted as 'spiritual' from a huge swathe of world religions. Because of their variety, the onus is on those claiming a particular personal experience as the Real McCoy to provide some method of sifting the wheat from the chaff, or indeed to ascertain whether any of these 'spiritual' experiences are what they claim to be.
As I have said before, I have known certain occasions which once I would have interpreted as 'divine visitations'. I now know enough about my own psychology, and about religion in general to be highly suspicious of such claims.
The extraordinary effects of such extreme mental states as migraine and epilepsy should not be ruled out in trying to understand what precipitates these phenomena. Besides which, there are few who would pretend that they experience the presence of God as a constant reality - most religious figures of history experience long periods of doubt and 'dark nights of the soul'.
And as for your claim that your experience is one that is common to millions of Christians world-wide - I suggest that is simply preposterous. Most Christians just continue as believers because that is the tradition in which they have been brought up, without thinking too much about the matter; and if something goes tragically wrong in their lives which prompts them to think more deeply, they still tend to rely on what they are told about the 'Goodness of God' and the 'Power of Prayer'.

[Alan Burns]

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.

The activity of electrons in the brain, like the activity of electrons in a computer processor are merely coded messages which ultimately need to be interpreted for them to have any meaning.  Without the act of interpreting, the patterns of activity are meaningless in themselves.  In both instances, the interpretor is a human being which uses the gift of conscious perception to interpret meanings behind the chemical activity.  In a computer, the processor will use the patterns of electrons to generate results which can be interpreted by human senses, and these senses will in turn generate some form of chemical activity in the brain which is perceived by the soul which then interprets meaning.  This all makes so much sense to me.  Without the the conscious awareness of the soul, we are merely complex arrangements of basic elements reacting in accordance with natural laws.

[Outrider]

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.

Maybe, maybe not. Patterns of electrical activity in the brain, and the balance of blood-flow and oxygen use in the brain, can be monitored and be shown to correlate to particular broad feelings and sensations, within the limited capacity of our current measurement tools.

This shows a correlation, but doesn't guarantee that one is or causes the other. In the absence of any other contender, I agree, it makes sense to presume that brain activity is the feeling, but that's a presumption not a demonstrable fact.

The activity of electrons in the brain, like the activity of electrons in a computer processor are merely coded messages which ultimately need to be interpreted for them to have any meaning.

Why? Who says that brain activity isn't evidence of the interpretation happening? Why does there have to be something else, and what are you positing as that 'something'?

This all makes so much sense to me.  Without the the conscious awareness of the soul, we are merely complex arrangements of basic elements reacting in accordance with natural laws.

We are not 'merely' anything - we are incredibly, mind-bogglingly, awareness-warpingly complex networks of finely balance electro-chemically active neurons fine-tuned with a chemical soup of nutrients and hormones. Yes, those act in accordance with natural laws, but nothing within that proscribes the possibility of consciousness. Why go looking for mystic woo to explain complexity? There is more than enough that we don't understand about both neurology and consciousness, without needing to add unevidenced ideas like 'souls'.

O.

[torridon]

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.

The activity of electrons in the brain, like the activity of electrons in a computer processor are merely coded messages which ultimately need to be interpreted for them to have any meaning.  Without the act of interpreting, the patterns of activity are meaningless in themselves.  In both instances, the interpretor is a human being which uses the gift of conscious perception to interpret meanings behind the chemical activity.  In a computer, the processor will use the patterns of electrons to generate results which can be interpreted by human senses, and these senses will in turn generate some form of chemical activity in the brain which is perceived by the soul which then interprets meaning.  This all makes so much sense to me.  Without the the conscious awareness of the soul, we are merely complex arrangements of basic elements reacting in accordance with natural laws.

Maybe it makes sense to you, but not to me.  Assuming by 'soul' you mean some sort of spirit entity inhabiting the body and separate to the body, it's an idea full of holes and the grandaddy of all the holes is that there isn't any evidence for it. 

Maybe you might claim it doesn't show up on scans because it is immaterial, but then you cannot go on to claim that such a thing has no problem interacting with our material bodies. 

It might have been a nice traditional means to fill a gap in our understanding, a placeholder to explain something inexplicable, but as a real entity to be taken seriously in a modern world informed by scientific investigation it is seriously compromised by its lack of existence.

And if you want to insist on this soul as an explanatory mechanism as to how complex feelings, sensations and perceptions are formed from simple bioelectrical stimuli, then you have to concede that most higher animals also must have a soul.  If you frighten a rabbit, it must have a soul in order to experience fear. If I throw a stick for my dog,  it must have a soul in order to experience excitement.

My tip is to be evidence-led in your thinking, then you don't get into all these sorts of knots that flow from a policy of starting with beliefs and then trying to explain away why real world observations don't fit.

[Alan Burns]

My tip is to be evidence-led in your thinking, then you don't get into all these sorts of knots that flow from a policy of starting with beliefs and then trying to explain away why real world observations don't fit.

If it is physical evidence you seek for the soul, you will never find it because the soul is eternal, and we know that in the physical world, nothing is eternal and even the universe itself will burn out.

Many say they can't believe unless there is compelling (physical) evidence.  But having been given the gift of free will to make choices, we have the opportunity to choose to put our trust in God's message of the New Testament.  You do not need compelling evidence to make an act of faith, and this is precisely what the NT invites us to do.  And there is no definitive proof that God does not exist.

[Shaker]

If it is physical evidence you seek for the soul, you will never find it because the soul is eternal

Two for the price of one - bald assertion and begging the question.

Many say they can't believe unless there is compelling (physical) evidence.  But having been given the gift of free will to make choices

Assertion.

And there is no definative proof that God does not exist.

Negative proof fallacy/appeal to-argument from ignorance. Don't let Hope know, he'll be livid.

[Leonard James]

... because the soul is eternal ...

That is just another of your beliefs planted in your mind by the book that has you completely hoodwinked, Alan.

[Alan Burns]

If it is physical evidence you seek for the soul, you will never find it because the soul is eternal

Two for the price of one - bald assertion and begging the question.

Many say they can't believe unless there is compelling (physical) evidence.  But having been given the gift of free will to make choices

Assertion.

And there is no definative proof that God does not exist.

Negative proof fallacy/appeal to-argument from ignorance. Don't let Hope know, he'll be livid.

But if there is just the possibility that God exists, you are free to choose to excercise your gift and try putting your faith in Him

[torridon]

My tip is to be evidence-led in your thinking, then you don't get into all these sorts of knots that flow from a policy of starting with beliefs and then trying to explain away why real world observations don't fit.

If it is physical evidence you seek for the soul, you will never find it because the soul is eternal, and we know that in the physical world, nothing is eternal and even the universe itself will burn out.

Yes well thats just a nice bunch of assertions with no justification.  Plus it makes no sense; if the soul is non-physical such that it cannot be detected by instrumentation then also by the same stroke it cannot interact with a human brain. You can't have it both ways.

Many say they can't believe unless there is compelling (physical) evidence.  But having been given the gift of free will to make choices, we have the opportunity to choose to put our trust in God's message of the New Testament.  You do not need compelling evidence to make an act of faith, and this is precisely what the NT invites us to do.  And there is no definitive proof that God does not exist.

Maybe the NT does invite that, but I think the NT is wrong in that respect.  No doubt you think the Qur'an is wrong in similar respects, we should not believe just because ancient writings implore us to, we can be reasonable people, we have it in our power to reason and to ask questions. Faith is an enemy of reason, it is a temptation that should be actively resisted by anyone that would be honest imo.

[Shaker]

But if there is just the possibility that God exists

The trouble with this Alan is that it's a non-starter, for a variety of reasons I shall now proceed to bore you with.

As far as I'm concerned entertaining the idea of the possibility of X depends upon at least two things signally missing from the concept of God. One is a clear, coherent and consistent definition of the thing under discussion (so that you know what the thing is if and when you encounter it); the second is some prior evidence, however scant, of the type of thing of whose possibility you're seeking.

The first one doesn't fly because the definition of God you get depends entirely upon the opinion and intepretation of the person you ask. Tom says this; Dick says this; Harry says that. It's all irredeemably subjective and that bolsters the suspicion that the whole thing is madey-uppy in the individual mind.

The second one is a little more complex but not all that much. Perhaps the most ready-to-hand example chosen for comparative purposes would be my stance on the possibility of life (not necessarily intelligent life; just life in general) elsewhere in the universe other than on the Earth. There is absolutely no direct evidence of this in existence anywhere, but I would stake a very large sum of money on not just the possibility of it (which is what we're discussing here) but the probability of it (which I know we're not), for a variety of reasons. Some of those reasons have to do with things such as the size of the universe and its age and our knowledge that the basics for life-as-we-know-it are prevalent in deep space and the tenacity and hardiness of life here on our planet, which are not directly relevant. (There are bacteria which love to make their home on the cooling rods in nuclear reactors, and bacteria that eat a substance which didn't even exist until 1935). For the purposes of the present discussion what is relevant is that we can know that we have identified extraterrestrial life because we already have a prior definition of the thing at hand and umpteen examples of it. We can know if and when we have identified carbon-based DNA or RNA-type life somewhere other than the Earth. In fact we even know enough to be able to know if we ever came across any form of life which wasn't based on carbon, and was based on some other element such as silicon (which by coincidence I mentioned in another context earlier today).

I can't even start to try to decide on the possibility of a god because I've never been furnished with a consistent definition of one (that's to say, a definition which didn't bend and wave and writhe and morph according to the individual believer) and therefore I've no knowledge of ever having encountered one. Possibility doesn't even come into it. Possibility of what?

you are free to choose to excercise your gift and try putting your faith in Him

Oh dear. We're back to flat assertion again

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But if there is just the possibility that God exists

The trouble with this Alan is that it's a non-starter, for a variety of reasons I shall now proceed to bore you with.

As far as I'm concerned entertaining the idea of the possibility of X depends upon at least two things signally missing from the concept of God. One is a clear, coherent and consistent definition of the thing under discussion (so that you know what the thing is if and when you encounter it); the second is some prior evidence, however scant, of the type of thing of whose possibility you're seeking.

The first one doesn't fly because the definition of God you get depends entirely upon the opinion and intepretation of the person you ask. Tom says this; Dick says this; Harry says that. It's all irredeemably subjective and that bolsters the suspicion that the whole thing is madey-uppy in the individual mind.

The second one is a little more complex but not all that much. Perhaps the most ready-to-hand example chosen for comparative purposes would be my stance on the possibility of life (not necessarily intelligent life; just life in general) elsewhere in the universe other than on the Earth. There is absolutely no direct evidence of this in existence anywhere, but I would stake a very large sum of money on not just the possibility of it (which is what we're discussing here) but the probability of it (which I know we're not), for a variety of reasons. Some of those reasons have to do with things such as the size of the universe and its age and our knowledge that the basics for life-as-we-know-it are prevalent in deep space and the tenacity and hardiness of life here on our planet, which are not directly relevant. (There are bacteria which love to make their home on the cooling rods in nuclear reactors, and bacteria that eat a substance which didn't even exist until 1935). For the purposes of the present discussion what is relevant is that we can know that we have identified extraterrestrial life because we already have a prior definition of the thing at hand and umpteen examples of it. We can know if and when we have identified carbon-based DNA or RNA-type life somewhere other than the Earth. In fact we even know enough to be able to know if we ever came across any form of life which wasn't based on carbon, and was based on some other element such as silicon (which by coincidence I mentioned in another context just ealier today).

I can't even start to try to decide on the possibility of a god because I've never been furnished with a consistent definition of one (that's to say, a definition which didn't bend and wave and writhe and morph according to the individual believer) and therefore I've no knowledge of ever having encountered one.

you are free to choose to excercise your gift and try putting your faith in Him

Oh dear. We're back to flat assertion again

yawn.

[Shaker]

Playgroup tomorrow Vlad. Way past your bedtime for a Sunday. Off you pop.

[Alan Burns]

But if there is just the possibility that God exists

The trouble with this Alan is that it's a non-starter, for a variety of reasons I shall now proceed to bore you with.

As far as I'm concerned entertaining the idea of the possibility of X depends upon at least two things signally missing from the concept of God. One is a clear, coherent and consistent definition of the thing under discussion (so that you know what the thing is if and when you encounter it); the second is some prior evidence, however scant, of the type of thing of whose possibility you're seeking.

The first one doesn't fly because the definition of God you get depends entirely upon the opinion and intepretation of the person you ask. Tom says this; Dick says this; Harry says that. It's all irredeemably subjective and that bolsters the suspicion that the whole thing is madey-uppy in the individual mind.

The second one is a little more complex but not all that much. Perhaps the most ready-to-hand example chosen for comparative purposes would be my stance on the possibility of life (not necessarily intelligent life; just life in general) elsewhere in the universe other than on the Earth. There is absolutely no direct evidence of this in existence anywhere, but I would stake a very large sum of money on not just the possibility of it (which is what we're discussing here) but the probability of it (which I know we're not), for a variety of reasons. Some of those reasons have to do with things such as the size of the universe and its age and our knowledge that the basics for life-as-we-know-it are prevalent in deep space and the tenacity and hardiness of life here on our planet, which are not directly relevant. (There are bacteria which love to make their home on the cooling rods in nuclear reactors, and bacteria that eat a substance which didn't even exist until 1935). For the purposes of the present discussion what is relevant is that we can know that we have identified extraterrestrial life because we already have a prior definition of the thing at hand and umpteen examples of it. We can know if and when we have identified carbon-based DNA or RNA-type life somewhere other than the Earth. In fact we even know enough to be able to know if we ever came across any form of life which wasn't based on carbon, and was based on some other element such as silicon (which by coincidence I mentioned in another context earlier today).

I can't even start to try to decide on the possibility of a god because I've never been furnished with a consistent definition of one (that's to say, a definition which didn't bend and wave and writhe and morph according to the individual believer) and therefore I've no knowledge of ever having encountered one. Possibility doesn't even come into it. Possibility of what?

you are free to choose to excercise your gift and try putting your faith in Him

Oh dear. We're back to flat assertion again

I understand what you are saying, but I am just looking for a way to help you to open the door to let God into your life, because He does exist.

[Shaker]

That's your belief, Alan; your opinion if you like. But no more than that.

[torridon]

I understand what you are saying, but I am just looking for a way to help you to open the door to let God into your life, because He does exist.

Evidence and reason Alan, that's what it comes down to.  If there's no good reason to accept a belief, then it shouldn't be accepted, simples.  All your beliefs are just networks of assertions; assertions aren't evidence. Many people mistakenly buy into such beliefs because they have been brought up to believe that faith is a good thing, a moral thing.  It isn't a good thing, it is a failure to think with clarity and integrity. I can see it makes many people happy, but to buy that happiness, they have sold out.

[Leonard James]

I understand what you are saying, but I am just looking for a way to help you to open the door to let God into your life, because He does exist.

Then you are chasing rainbows, Alan. Most non-believers are so because they are unable to accept as fact something for which they see no convincing evidence.

[Nearly Sane]

I understand what you are saying, but I am just looking for a way to help you to open the door to let God into your life, because He does exist.

Perhaps you could pray to your god to get you some arguments to help address Shaker's points?

[Sriram]

I understand what you are saying, but I am just looking for a way to help you to open the door to let God into your life, because He does exist.

You might genuinely mean that in a positive way. But it is precisely that sort of superior and patronizing stand that results in all the mistakes that Christianity and Islam have committed over the centuries.

God is within everyone and as long as people are good, humane and loving people their disbelief in your particular deity cannot be of any consequence.  Haven't you heard.... 'God is love'?   

[jjohnjil]

I understand what you are saying, but I am just looking for a way to help you to open the door to let God into your life, because He does exist.

You might genuinely mean that in a positive way. But it is precisely that sort of superior and patronizing stand that results in all the mistakes that Christianity and Islam have committed over the centuries.

God is within everyone and as long as people are good, humane and loving people their disbelief in your particular deity cannot be of any consequence.  Haven't you heard.... 'God is love'?   

Good post, Sriram!

'Do as you would be done by'   No one (or god) can ask more than that of a human being.

[Outrider]

If it is physical evidence you seek for the soul, you will never find it because the soul is eternal, and we know that in the physical world, nothing is eternal and even the universe itself will burn out.

In the absence of evidence what reason have we to think the idea is even valid?

Many say they can't believe unless there is compelling (physical) evidence.  But having been given the gift of free will to make choices, we have the opportunity to choose to put our trust in God's message of the New Testament.

Yet, having been given the capacity to reason, how can we? Belief is not a matter of will, you do not choose what to believe, you can only choose the sources to which you will expose yourself.

O.

[Sriram]

jjohnjil,

'Do as you would be done by'....I was reminded of the 'Water Babies'. 

[Outrider]

But if there is just the possibility that God exists, you are free to choose to excercise your gift and try putting your faith in Him

First - how do we know if it's actually possible?

Secondly - if it is possible, then it's equally possible that Allah is real, Zeus, Wise Eagle, Ameratsu Omikami, Gaia... do we put our faith in all of them? Do you?

O.

[Outrider]

I understand what you are saying, but I am just looking for a way to help you to open the door to let God into your life, because He does exist.

Thank you, Alan. I disagree with your conclusion, but I appreciate the intention.

You state the God exists. I don't believe that, and I don't see how anyone else can, given the evidence. I don't feel that I'm lacking anything, there is no 'god-shaped hole' in my life or my world-view.

There is nothing in the world around me that would lead me to think there was a space for a god.

Ultimately, I don't think there is a large group of people out there that can be swayed - in the main, people either accept stories at face value, evidence is of less importance than feeling, and they believe; or they are evidence-based thinkers, and no amount of claims will sway them in the absence of evidence. The debate is actually about how we depict the world to the people that follow us, how we shape them in their development to frame which side of that divide they will fall on.

O.

[Outrider]

You might genuinely mean that in a positive way. But it is precisely that sort of superior and patronizing stand that results in all the mistakes that Christianity and Islam have committed over the centuries.

The irony of lecturing someone for all the faults of Christianity and Islam over history is delicious.

God is within everyone and as long as people are good, humane and loving people their disbelief in your particular deity cannot be of any consequence.  Haven't you heard.... 'God is love'?

Whereas, of course, 'Eastern' religions are full of cryptic nonsense that can mean anything you want after an event that wasn't foreseeable at the time the nonsense was spouted...

If you have something to say, say it clearly - you've capitalised 'God' as though it were a specific, individual concept, yet your depiction of it is as a non-localised, inherent component of humanity (at least). I'm guessing you don't have any evidence to support that, you're just going to resort to the same sort of meaningless, circular, spirit-referencing religio-jargon to justify unevidenced wishes with other unevidenced wish-fulfilling ideas.

O.

[Shaker]

Another excellent brace of posts, big O.