Why is there no verifiable evidence?

[Stranger]

You say that but there is a real category blunder being committed here.

Do you actually have the first clue what all these mantras of yours actually mean ("category error", "ontological naturalism" etc.)?

[Stranger]

You say that but there is a real category blunder being committed here.

Here is a hint: category mistake does not mean "your example isn't exactly the same, in every respect, to what I was talking about".

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/category-mistake
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_mistake

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Whereas gods don't exist. I see your point.

You've taken that out of context.

Were you not to misrepresent and quote the whole thing you would see that proposing mirages is another atheist category fuck up.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Whereas gods don't exist. I see your point.

Gods don't exist .Can you prove that assertion.

[Stranger]

...another atheist category fuck up.

Another demonstration that you don't know the meanings of the terms you use.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

Poor analogy since lakes exist. You are using an illusion of an existent to exemplify an illusion of a supposed non existent.

No just highlighting the dangers relying personal experience.

I had the experience of seeing a lake. You claim you had an experience of God.

Hope said we could use personal experience to get to the truth of the matter.

Do we each take each others word for it or do we ask for further justification? That is the point.

In the case of the lake we can easily see how my experience could be shown to be a true reflection of reality  or not.

All we need now is a way of knowing if your experience of God is a true reflection of reality or not. Or in the case of God is experience as far as it goes?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

 

No just highlighting the dangers relying personal experience.

I had the experience of seeing a lake. You claim you had an experience of God.

Hope said we could use personal experience to get to the truth of the matter.

Do we each take each others word for it or do we ask for further justification? That is the point.

In the case of the lake we can easily see how my experience could be shown to be a true reflection of reality  or not.

All we need now is a way of knowing if your experience of God is a true reflection of reality or not. Or in the case of God is experience as far as it goes?

But Stephen, your personal experience was presumably in a strange country, with strange geography, eating, probably a strange diet in a strange culture.

Had you continued in that environment the effect would have worn off.

The Jerusalem effect whereby people transform into religious leaders is more interesting because it seems closer to what you are trying to get at but fails as an analogy for permanent or transformative conversion because the syndrome WEARS OFF when the subject leaves Jerusalem.

Another point is that you saw something if as I understand it was a mirage but interpreted it as something else.

Christian experience of God I would move is transformative and repentant that is it involves a change in attitude in oneself about the need for salvation. That ifor many I would move is the hard part and the point at which a more ego friendly reinterpretation of divine encounter is sought.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

;)But Stephen, your personal experience was presumably in a strange country, with strange geography, eating, probably a strange diet in a strange culture.

Had you continued in that environment the effect would have worn off.

The Jerusalem effect whereby people transform into religious leaders is more interesting because it seems closer to what you are trying to get at but fails as an analogy for permanent or transformative conversion because the syndrome WEARS OFF when the subject leaves Jerusalem.

Another point is that you saw something if as I understand it was a mirage but interpreted it as something else.

Christian experience of God I would move is transformative and repentant that is it involves a change in attitude in oneself about the need for salvation. That ifor many I would move is the hard part and the point at which a more ego friendly reinterpretation of divine encounter is sought.

I think you are trying to read too much into the example. It's just shows that what we experience is not always a true representation of reality.

You're other example just shows that an experience can be life changing. I don't disagree, but I don't see how that shows that the experience is real.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I think you are trying to read too much into the example. It's just shows that what we experience is not always a true representation of reality.

You're other example just shows that an experience can be life changing. I don't disagree, but I don't see how that shows that the experience is real.

I merely point out that examples of unreal experience are demonstrably not real or demonstrably a different interpretation and that divorces your attempt at analogy a further degree.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

I merely point out that examples of unreal experience are demonstrably not real or demonstrably a different interpretation and that divorces your attempt at analogy a further degree.

I think that highlights your problem not mine. Mine can be demonstrated to be real or not real. You can't say the same about yours.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I think that highlights your problem not mine. Mine can be demonstrated to be real or not real. You can't say the same about yours.

Not really since you are incorrect.
Your examples of the unreal can never be demonstrated to be real

A category issue I'm afraid.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

Not really since you are incorrect.
Your examples of the unreal can never be demonstrated to be real

A category issue I'm afraid.

Sighs....


Look back to the original example.

I have had an experience. Is that experience a true reflection of reality? We could put on our trunks and arm bands and go and see if it was a lake. Easy  Peasy Lemon Squeezy.

You have had an experience of God. Is that a true reflection of reality? We could .......

[Stranger]

A category issue I'm afraid.

No, it isn't.   

[wigginhall]

Sighs....


Look back to the original example.

I have had an experience. Is that experience a true reflection of reality? We could put on our trunks and arm bands and go and see if it was a lake. Easy  Peasy Lemon Squeezy.

You have had an experience of God. Is that a true reflection of reality? We could .......

It's an interesting example, since as an hallucination (not an illusion), it can be checked empirically.   In other words, as you say, you can drive in that direction to see if there really is a lake, or go up in a helicopter.   In the case of illusions, it's more tricky, I think, since there is something real going on, but not exactly as per the illusion (for example, the bent stick in water). 

But maybe both these examples are poor analogies to religious experience, since this claims a supernatural process or event, or whatever it's called.

I find experiences in Buddhism and other Eastern religions interesting, as there are plenty of mind-blowing experiences, which can be loosely called non-dualist, or non-ego, yet no supernatural origin is claimed for them.   Well, maybe you could have a non-supernatural God, of some kind or other. 

But the supernatural God cannot by definition be checked out empirically.   This is a nonsense.

[jeremyp]

You've taken that out of context.

I missed out the second part of your post but that doesn't really change the context. You claimed it was a category error to compare something that exists with God. In that case we can reasonably infer that your meaning was that God is not in the category of things that exist.

Sorry, but the blunder was entirely yours.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

It's an interesting example, since as an hallucination (not an illusion), it can be checked empirically.   In other words, as you say, you can drive in that direction to see if there really is a lake, or go up in a helicopter.   In the case of illusions, it's more tricky, I think, since there is something real going on, but not exactly as per the illusion (for example, the bent stick in water). 

But maybe both these examples are poor analogies to religious experience, since this claims a supernatural process or event, or whatever it's called.

I find experiences in Buddhism and other Eastern religions interesting, as there are plenty of mind-blowing experiences, which can be loosely called non-dualist, or non-ego, yet no supernatural origin is claimed for them.   Well, maybe you could have a non-supernatural God, of some kind or other. 

But the supernatural God cannot by definition be checked out empirically.   This is a nonsense.

Well in the case of the lake I think there is something real going on. It is to do with the hot sand, the air above it and the light passing though it.

It's just we misinterpret what our eyes are telling us.


So all I am asking is how the supernatural God can be checked out?

[wigginhall]

Well in the case of the lake I think there is something real going on. It is to do with the hot sand, the air above it and the light passing though it.

It's just we misinterpret what our eyes are telling us.


So all I am asking is how the supernatural God can be checked out?

Obviously, it can't.   Or if you like, 'checking out a supernatural God' is an oxymoron.   However, for various reasons, some Christians are reluctant to admit this, and so obfuscate like mad.   

It beats me why they just can't say, this is my faith.   I suppose it's science envy or philosophy envy, or something like that, so they have to think up a sciencey type argument for God, thus discrediting the whole thing. 

I suppose if something really strange happened, e.g. all cancer patients in the world were healed overnight, we would wonder about it.   But funnily enough, it doesn't happen. 

[Owlswing]

Obviously, it can't.   Or if you like, 'checking out a supernatural God' is an oxymoron.   However, for various reasons, some Christians are reluctant to admit this, and so obfuscate like mad.   

It beats me why they just can't say, this is my faith.   I suppose it's science envy or philosophy envy, or something like that, so they have to think up a sciencey type argument for God, thus discrediting the whole thing. 

I suppose if something really strange happened, e.g. all cancer patients in the world were healed overnight, we would wonder about it.   But funnily enough, it doesn't happen.

. . . and probably never will until SCIENCE finds a cure!

[Rhiannon]

It beats me why they just can't say, this is my faith.   I suppose it's science envy or philosophy envy, or something like that, so they have to think up a sciencey type argument for God, thus discrediting the whole thing. 

I've thought about this and the only explanation I can come up with is that they aren't trying to prove anything to us at all, but to themselves.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

Obviously, it can't.   Or if you like, 'checking out a supernatural God' is an oxymoron.   However, for various reasons, some Christians are reluctant to admit this, and so obfuscate like mad.   

It beats me why they just can't say, this is my faith.   I suppose it's science envy or philosophy envy, or something like that, so they have to think up a sciencey type argument for God, thus discrediting the whole thing. 

I suppose if something really strange happened, e.g. all cancer patients in the world were healed overnight, we would wonder about it.   But funnily enough, it doesn't happen.

I think you are probably right but it would be very interesting if there was a different way of determining if things supernatural (whatever they might be) did exist.

I know Hope and Vlad won't believe it but it is genuinely true that I am intersted.

[Owlswing]

I've thought about this and the only explanation I can come up with is that they aren't trying to prove anything to us at all, but to themselves.

Hear!! Hear!!

They probably think that if they stop spouting the same old rubbish day after day after day their God will punish them for apostacy!

The sooner the better as far as I am concerned if it shuts them up!

[ippy]

Gods don't exist .Can you prove that assertion.

Vlad, you're making yourself sound like Hope, get some form of treatment, quick as you can, before it sets in permanantly.

ippy

[Hope]

Vlad, you're making yourself sound like Hope, get some form of treatment, quick as you can, before it sets in permanantly.

ippy

He's sounding more like you, ippy, than like me 

[Hope]

Well in the case of the lake I think there is something real going on. It is to do with the hot sand, the air above it and the light passing though it.

Yet this isn't the only way in which a lake can exist in the desert, Stephen.  Wadis that have been dry for decades can suddenly be filled to overflowing by an unexpected and torrential rain storm.  It may only last for a very short time, but is so torrential as to provide enough water to refill aquifers and wells.

It's just we misinterpret what our eyes are telling us.

No, in most cases, we interpret what our eyes are telling is correctly, because we know about the phenomenon of mirages.  Just occasionally that understanding is what is at fault.

So all I am asking is how the supernatural God can be checked out?

I suppose in the same way as these rare but real lakes in the desert - by personal experience.  Its only recently that we have been able to verify the existences of such lakes if their appearance coincides with a satellite overflying at the appropriate time.

[Shaker]

I suppose in the same way as these rare but real lakes in the desert

Using a naturalistic methodology to evaluate a claim of the allegedly supernatural - are you sure?