Searching for GOD...

[Enki]

From Post 19716 by Vlad:

Enki I think we here, either come down on the side of ruling psychological incompetence or ruling psychological competence with regards to experience.

You might. I'm not sure what exactly you mean by 'psychological competence/incompetence' but, anyway, I have no means of telling them apart without recourse to other information, argument or evidence. So, I don't dismiss personal experiences, I simply suggest that they are entirely meaningful for the person concerned without necessarily being of value to others, unless they have some other form of objective backup.

I'm open to a case for psychological incompetence, of evidence of delusion (but not from a starting premise of religious experience is definitionally delusion, illusion, hallucination etc.)

That's entirely up to you how you take them. For me, they are, as I have already stated,  personal, very subjective things, which, on their own, are no evidence of any objective divine influences.

The thing though is that God seems to be everywhere.....particularly in Dawkins writings

Again, if you see that, then so be it. For me, I don't see any evidence for any god in any of Dawkin's writings.

[Enki]

Would you say you haven't had any that would lend themselves to that?

Quite some time ago, there was a thread which asked for people to describe any 'experiences' that they had had. I contributed to that thread by describing a couple of experiences, one of which I had when aged about seven or eight(I think). None of these experiences have suggested to me anything about any objective reality as far as I am aware, but they have illustrated to me the nature of my own mind.

[Enki]

Your post kills the argument from personal experience.   Well, I suppose one individual might say 'I've experienced God', but that does not lead to 'there is God', unless one thinks one's experience is guaranteed.   Somewhat hubristic.

I remember when I used to help run meditation retreats, and there were a huge variety of experiences that people had, including total emptiness, chaos, non-divinity, divinity, and so on.    Why would you pick one these as correct?

To my mind your second paragraph makes a very good point, Wiggs.  The nature of these experiences seem to be so very varied.  Indeed my wife has talked about certain experiences that she has had in the past which seem a world away from my own.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I remember when I used to help run meditation retreats, and there were a huge variety of experiences that people had, including total emptiness, chaos, non-divinity, divinity, and so on.    Why would you pick one these as correct?

Who is?

[Maeght]

From today's Gospel -

Matthew 11:25
Jesus said, “I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from wise and intelligent people and have revealed them to infants.

So can I suggest that to find God, we must admit that human intellectual abilities alone are not capable of discovering the truth, and the fallacy detectors do not help.  Just allow God to reveal Himself to you.

Suggest what you want.

[torridon]

From today's Gospel -

Matthew 11:25
Jesus said, “I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from wise and intelligent people and have revealed them to infants.

So can I suggest that to find God, we must admit that human intellectual abilities alone are not capable of discovering the truth, and the fallacy detectors do not help.  Just allow God to reveal Himself to you.

He doesn't though, well certainly not to everyone. If he reveals himself to some but stubbornly insists on hiding from others, what are we to make of that ?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Fallacy Boy,

Who is?

You is.

Indeed you seem to get quite upset when others don't just accept at face value the explanatory narrative you've come up with for your experience. That you deploy a battery of logical fallacies to to rationalise the explanation doesn't help you at all, but that's a separate matter.

[bluehillside Retd.]

torri,

He doesn't though, well certainly not to everyone. If he reveals himself to some but stubbornly insists on hiding from others, what are we to make of that ?

He's choosy about his friends?

[torridon]

Enki I think we here, either come down on the side of ruling psychological incompetence or ruling psychological competence with regards to experience.

I don't see that 'psychological (in)competence' relates to experience.  Experience is fundamental and visceral, competences don't come into it. Competences might be relevant in any forms of mental abstraction, such as when trying to rationalise experience in terms of a bigger conceptual framework, and that is where disputes are centered.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Fallacy Boy,

You is.

Indeed you seem to get quite upset when others don't just accept at face value the explanatory narrative you've come up with for your experience..

Total Bollocks, Muddy,........ for a start Wigginhall gives a list of experiences people relate to him. I don't think I've ever said you cannot have those experiences.

I don't expect people to accept my experience at face value, indeed what good would it do them since I cannot take an experience and give it to someone else. I have said these things frequently and yet again you ignore them in act of apparently knowing what people weally and twuly mean. But again you have attempted to divert attention from ass clenching Dogmatic Agnosticism

[Shaker]

I don't expect people to accept my experience at face value, indeed what good would it do them since I cannot take an experience and give it to someone else.

By Jove, I think he's got it!

Next step: telling Alan Burns.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I don't see that 'psychological (in)competence' relates to experience.  Experience is fundamental and visceral, competences don't come into it. Competences might be relevant in any forms of mental abstraction, such as when trying to rationalise experience in terms of a bigger conceptual framework, and that is where disputes are centered.

Well some have presented religious experience and it's interpretation as mental aberration and impairment. They know who they are. I think it's fair to wrap it up as psychological incompetence. Oh, and before somebody wades in 'well they could be wrong' while not acknowledging that they could be the one's in the wrong. We can include not having the right ideas as psychological incompetence as well.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

By Jove, I think he's got it!

Always had it Shaker.

It's just you everyone is waiting for .......trying to get your ''Rig'' to negotiate that hopscotch court.

[Alan Burns]

He doesn't though, well certainly not to everyone. If he reveals himself to some but stubbornly insists on hiding from others, what are we to make of that ?

Perhaps it is not God who is stubbornly hiding.


Matthew 7:7-8

 ‘Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.  For everyone who asks receives; the one who seeks finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened.

[Shaker]

Perhaps it is not God who is stubbornly hiding.

Perhaps there's no god at all, and some people are in search of a thing that isn't hiding because it doesn't actually exist.

Ever thought of that?

No.

Of course, you will not even consider such a possibility, this requiring far more breadth of mind than you possess.

Though you seem to expect us to consider your hypothetical scenarios without ever doing the same in return.

Matthew 7:7-8

 ‘Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.  For everyone who asks receives; the one who seeks finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened.

What about those who sincerely seek and find nothing?

Whose fault is that?

Or do you deny tout court that such a thing even exists (in the teeth of the evidence of several people on this very forum)?

[Maeght]

Perhaps it is not God who is stubbornly hiding.


Matthew 7:7-8

 ‘Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.  For everyone who asks receives; the one who seeks finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened.

I've never understood how anyone can do thus when they have no belief. You must surely have some initial belief  otherwise how could you genuinely ask or knock?

[Shaker]

I've never understood how anyone can do thus when they have no belief. You must surely have some initial belief  otherwise how could you genuinely ask or knock?

Don't bother asking.

[ippy]

It never ceases to surprise me how many like Alan there are still around, in the now 21st century.

I noticed in another thread religious belief has gone down here in the U K by another couple of percent, did you see that Alan, you and yours seem to be gradually on your way out, no doubt to join the Zeus supporters club; ever considered Thor Alan?

ippy

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I've never understood how anyone can do thus when they have no belief. You must surely have some initial belief  otherwise how could you genuinely ask or knock?

But we might consider that the dispensing of belief might be in the prevue of God.
how do you feel about experimenting? No belief? ask for some................. of course this is also test for yourself and how you feel about the suggestion and as you know I believe unpacking that gives you the answer to the question how much belief you have.

Also too, we all have all sorts of beliefs we never used to have.

The late David Watson talks about his experiments into Christianity as an unbeliever. I still chuckle at his description of his fear at becoming like the other people at the meetings.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Fallacy Boy,

Total Bollocks, Muddy,........ for a start Wigginhall gives a list of experiences people relate to him. I don't think I've ever said you cannot have those experiences.

And once again you miss the point entirely. It’s not that people actually do experience “God”, great aunt Fanny who died in the Great War, or the Man in the moon – it’s that these are the explanatory stories they attach to their experiences.

Good grief!

I don't expect people to accept my experience at face value,…

Stop lying. That’s exactly what you do. How many times have you said “So do you deny my experience then?” (indeed you asked it just a few posts ago about AB’s experience) only for me to explain over and again that no one doubts that experiences of some sort were had, but the doubts are all concerned with the explanations you and others reach for to explain their experiences.

You for example reach for the religious narrative that just happens to be most proximate to the place and time in which you live (what are the chances eh?) but you have no coherent reasoning that would rationalise that possible explanation over any other.     

…indeed what good would it do them since I cannot take an experience and give it to someone else.

Wow – does this meant that something is finally sinking in? No you can’t give it to someone else. More to the point though, nor can you expect anyone else to think you’re right in your attribution of cause for your own experience when all you have to support it is assertion and bad logic.

I have said these things frequently and yet again you ignore them in act of apparently knowing what people weally and twuly mean.

No you haven’t. The only thing you’ve said frequently – endlessly in fact – is that because you think “God” caused your experience, the rest of us should think that you’re right about that.

But again you have attempted to divert attention from ass clenching Dogmatic Agnosticism

No, I’m trying to stop you from diverting attention from the topic under discussion, and we’ve already established that “dogmatic agnosticism” is just another of your straw men so why then continue with the lie?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Fallacy Boy,

Well some have presented religious experience and it's interpretation as mental aberration and impairment. They know who they are.

And some have presented it as potentially lots of other causal explanations too, none of which it seems you have any interest in considering before you arrive at “God”.

I think it's fair to wrap it up as psychological incompetence.

Then you think wrongly. What do you even think you mean by that term, and what relevance to anything do you think it has?

Oh, and before somebody wades in 'well they could be wrong' while not acknowledging that they could be the one's in the wrong.

No-one does that. It’s the “absolute certainty” merchants who think they can’t be wrong – the rest of us though are quite content to live with the uncertainty of not being sure of anything.

We can include not having the right ideas as psychological incompetence as well.

No “we” can’t because it’s gibberish.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Fallacy Boy,

And once again you miss the point entirely. It’s not that people actually do experience “God”, great aunt Fanny who died in the Great War, or the Man in the moon – it’s that these are the explanatory stories they attach to their experiences.

Good grief!

Stop lying. That’s exactly what you do. How many times have you said “So do you deny my experience then?” (indeed you asked it just a few posts ago about AB’s experience) only for me to explain over and again that no one doubts that experiences of some sort were had, but the doubts are all concerned with the explanations you and others reach for to explain their experiences.

You for example reach for the religious narrative that just happens to be most proximate to the place and time in which you live (what are the chances eh?) but you have no coherent reasoning that would rationalise that possible explanation over any other.     

Wow – does this meant that something is finally sinking in? No you can’t give it to someone else. More to the point though, nor can you expect anyone else to think you’re right in your attribution of cause for your own experience when all you have to support it is assertion and bad logic.

No you haven’t. The only thing you’ve said frequently – endlessly in fact – is that because you think “God” caused your experience, the rest of us should think that you’re right about that.

No, I’m trying to stop you from diverting attention from the topic under discussion, and we’ve already established that “dogmatic agnosticism” is just another of your straw men so why then continue with the lie?

Car crash, Hillside.......or should I say.. Road rage followed by RTA?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Fallacy Boy,

But we might consider that the dispensing of belief might be in the prevue of God.

“Prevue”?

Anyway, we might but only if we’re daft enough to think the fallacy of circular argument isn’t a fallacy when we happen to like its outcome.

…how do you feel about experimenting? No belief? ask for some................. of course this is also test for yourself and how you feel about the suggestion and as you know I believe unpacking that gives you the answer to the question how much belief you have.

That’s not an experiment. How would you propose to evaluate the results? How would you allow for biases? What double blind testing method would you propose? Who would you suggest someone “ask” if they have no reason to believe in the divine in the first place?     

Also too, we all have all sorts of beliefs we never used to have.

Actually fewer I’d have thought as reason has tended to drive out woo, but in any case what relevance would this have even if it were true?

The late David Watson talks about his experiments into Christianity as an unbeliever. I still chuckle at his description of his fear at becoming like the other people at the meetings.

Fine. So what methods did he use to evaluate his results?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Fallacy Boy,

Car crash, Hillside.......or should I say.. Road rage followed by RTA?

Again you crashed, again you burned. Move along folks - nothing so to see here.

If ever you do feel like trying actually to respond to the arguments that undid you though, by all means give it a go. 

[Alan Burns]

I've never understood how anyone can do thus when they have no belief. You must surely have some initial belief  otherwise how could you genuinely ask or knock?

Which is why I am trying to open up minds to the possibility, or even the probability of God's existence.