Religious Experiences - Evidence of God(s)?

quote:

---

If one explanation is evidenced and the other not they are not both faith based are they?

---

So you agree with that both are faith based, right? It is a matter of which one you believe by your faith to be more legitimate, in the end.

quote:

---

Rather, I speculate those giving out alternative explanations can't be aware of the that their explanations are somehow faith based.

---

How come you can draw your conclusion even before I present my case?!It is your faith that functions in the judgment of this case.Moreover, you are clueless about what evidence is. Truth itself has nothing to do with evidence, evidence is for a human brian/believe system to try to identify a truth.Moreover, you can't determine whether my case is evidence or not, it is only inside your faith that things are not evident.Edited by Hawkins, : No reason given.Edited by Hawkins, : No reason given.

quote:

---

I have already explained my experiences, closely co-related within a time frame of about 15 years.

​

Why is 'truly experienced God' your preferred explanation over the multitude of neural effects that can cause similar things? Do you think something being about 'the future' or any confusion of space and time doesn't happen to people having strokes, epileptic fits etc?

---

I think that you might have fallen for a fallacy.There are 10 people going into a dark room, 9 of them come out bare handed while 1 of them with a gold coin. Now is there a gold coin in the dark room? The 9 say 'no', while the 1 say 'yes'.When you go into a dark room and find nothing inside, you can't actually prove that there's nothing inside. While the one coming out with anything can prove that the dark room isn't empty at all.The point is, even when it is true that he found the coin. How can this truth be conveyed. There's not an efficient way for the truth of this kind to be conveyed. To simply put, you need faith, either to believe that he found the coin, or to believed that he lied (or delusional).Moreover, when I said "future" you are totally clueless about what I was talking about, as a result of lack in experience. Anyway, whenever prophets are concerned, you will hear the stories of their prophecies. While prophecies can be used as a part of a protocol for reliable communication. Prophecies are human brain independent, you can't be delutional about a prophecy.That's the "FUTURE" I am talking about. Anyway, the judgment of my case involves something much more complicated than you can imagine or ever know of.Edited by Hawkins, : No reason given.Edited by Hawkins, : No reason given.

When I say 'they are not both faith based', I am not agreeing that they are both faith based. I even provided the definition of faith that I was using by implication: a type of trust in an explanation that is not based upon independently accessible empirical support.So let's not equivocate, OK?

It would be if I had said any of that. But you have assumed that technology cannot reach 'the afterlife' presumably as an explanation for why, despite looking, we haven't found any support for the idea, not me.However, the brain can be studied with technology. And it appears some of the most powerful experiences we've been able to study turn out to be explainable in terms of neural function. So if we know that a clogged up air filter can cause your car certain problems with certain symptoms when starting - and your car is displaying those symptoms...why would we bother hypothesizing Gremlins? Religious experiences. Experiences of speaking with God/Allah, a celestial chorus of spirits, leszi etc etc. The kinds of experiences I was asking you about, the kinds of experiences this thread is about. I have detailed some of my religious experiences in this thread. Why not explain yours? I have said before: I am for cancer research. I am not an oncologist. I have never seen cancerous tissue. Doesn't that completely answer your question? By not blindly believing myself or other's impressions of what we experience. That's a great way to end up believing in lies or errors.Personally - I'd rather NOT believe something is true when it was, than to believe something IS true when it is false. It seems a great defence against conmen, and any intrinsic biases I might possess. Well - to stay on topic. I understand the reticence, I explained my own reticence when I was a believer starting in Message 21. But I'm interested in learning the truth - you are the one that ran your 'superior' religious experiences up the flagpole, you brought them up. I was asking about them because either
a) you experienced god and that's very important.
b) you didn't, and you've made quite a mistake, which is also important.If you are confident that your experiences were divine - why not tell the world? Does reading counter-views upset you? But you know they are false. Why should false words matter? Have you asked yourself why you are so bothered when 'others jump on {you} like crazy'? They aren't really jumping on you, just offering alternative ideas which you may consider or reject at will - right? As you challenged- maybe the truth of your experiences lies outside your knowledge? Are you worried you might be wrong and prefer to remain 'comfortable' in your current views in which you have invested a great deal of time?Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Blimey - could you try responding to my posts in just one post? Fragmenting the discussion is very confusing. Why would the 9 say that? Why wouldn't they just say 'can anyone find a gold coin'? And if someone says "I've got one.", then say "How do you know its a gold coin?" Not at all. If a person claims the coin they found was not gold, but was made of platinum. Another person puts it in their pocket and says that the coin answers all his questions and refuses to talk any further. Someone else says the coin is made of gold. A further person claims it is gold plated, with a bronze interior.My question to all of them would be: Why is 'gold plated with a bronze interior' (or whatever it happened to be in their case) your preferred hypothesis?And that's all I am asking you. How is that a fallacy? Of course, which is why I asked about it, and you refused to answer. Hardly my fault is it? I'm still unclear. Are you suggesting that you have had experiences of the actual future which have subsequently come true, and you used strict protocols to avoid bias to confirm that this is so?Then why not talk about it - it sounds fascinating? If that were true, why are you talking to me about it at all? Were you just trying to impress us with your spiritual awesomeness? Were you showing off that you have been touched by the True Gold Coin, and I merely had a gold plated one and couldn't understand the transcendent wonder you have personally experienced?Of course - you have absolutely no way of actually knowing my imagination's limitations nor my epistemic capacities. Perhaps you are just trying to convince yourself that you do, because it helps explain why your Truth, so Clearly and Obviously expressed, has been rejected or queried? Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

I have no idea who you are quoting and if you have a case that isn't just declaring faith to be wondrous and lovely then feel free to present it. If your form of evidence or chosen method of acquiring knowledge is unable to demonstrate itself as ever having led to conclusions that are superior to biased guesses then I am afraid it isn't evidence.

quote:

---

When I say 'they are not both faith based', I am not agreeing that they are both faith based. I even provided the definition of faith that I was using by implication: a type of trust in an explanation that is not based upon independently accessible empirical support.

​

So let's not equivocate, OK?

---

The point is, you consider that the neural effect as an empirical support while we don't. Reliable experimentation can't even be accurately carried out. That's rather faith based.So who's equivocating? Moreover, with your attitude like this, we can't carrying on with our discussion long enough. While you already assume tha I am equivocating, what's the point for a further discussion?!Edited by Hawkins, : No reason given.Edited by Hawkins, : No reason given.

quote:

---

It would be if I had said any of that. But you have assumed that technology cannot reach 'the afterlife' presumably as an explanation for why, despite looking, we haven't found any support for the idea, not me.

---

So by following your logic, if something is not supported by human technology must not true, right? So why not just keep your discussion onto the topics which already supported by human technology? But no, you keep discussing things like Chritianity which apparently is not well supported by human technology. Why?You seem to be loop yourself into your own circular logic.

quote:

---

However, the brain can be studied with technology. And it appears some of the most powerful experiences we've been able to study turn out to be explainable in terms of neural function. So if we know that a clogged up air filter can cause your car certain problems with certain symptoms when starting - and your car is displaying those symptoms...why would we bother hypothesizing Gremlins?

---

Again, you sound if there shouldn't be any truth outside of human technology. While consently realise that your technology such as neural explanation can't cover 100% yet you extend your 90% tool as if it should work for 100%. That's your faith, even by own definition.Experience about what? Absence of evidence, you may experience though 100000000000000000000000 years of absence of evidence, yet 1 encounter can disprove your stance.

quote:

---

Religious experiences. Experiences of speaking with God/Allah, a celestial chorus of spirits, leszi etc etc. The kinds of experiences I was asking you about, the kinds of experiences this thread is about. I have detailed some of my religious experiences in this thread. Why not explain yours?

---

You here you mean that all experiences should be looked and viewed the same, there shouldn't be anything unique and different. It seems to be your style to try extend something which can't be with 100% coverage to an extent which requires faith to support.On the other hand, I already hinted you the 2 most crucial parts have been overlooked and don't seem to be included in your "all the same" conclusion about religious experience. 1) It is series of event with a consistent co-relationship. 2) It involves the future which your neural explanation isn't applicable.

quote:

---

I have said before: I am for cancer research. I am not an oncologist. I have never seen cancerous tissue. Doesn't that completely answer your question?

---

No, I can't relate what could that mean to our current discussion.

quote:

---

By not blindly believing myself or other's impressions of what we experience. That's a great way to end up believing in lies or errors.

---

That's just another fallacy. Gee. So you mean because something is a "great way to end up with lies and errors" such that there is no truth behind all and every case?!

quote:

---

Personally - I'd rather NOT believe something is true when it was, than to believe something IS true when it is false. It seems a great defence against conmen, and any intrinsic biases I might possess.

---

So what's your personal preference has anything to do with what truth is?I think I've already illustrated how your this kind of relying on a reliable tool for survival blinds you from further identify the truth of Christianity.

quote:

---

Well - to stay on topic. I understand the reticence, I explained my own reticence when I was a believer starting in Message 21. But I'm interested in learning the truth - you are the one that ran your 'superior' religious experiences up the flagpole, you brought them up. I was asking about them because either

---

No, you don't seem to get the point. While when someone is denying the simple truth (at least which appears to be a simple truth to me) like neural effect can't extend its application into future related phenominon like prophecies. What's the point of continue with my story. That could only lead to more unpleasent attack rather than a healthy discussion.

quote:

---

If you are confident that your experiences were divine - why not tell the world? Does reading counter-views upset you? But you know they are false. Why should false words matter? Have you asked yourself why you are so bothered when 'others jump on {you} like crazy'? They aren't really jumping on you, just offering alternative ideas which you may consider or reject at will - right? As you challenged- maybe the truth of your experiences lies outside your knowledge? Are you worried you might be wrong and prefer to remain 'comfortable' in your current views in which you have invested a great deal of time?

---

It seems that I already told you that I respect God's will more than humans' will. Whenever a discussion can't work to my expectation, I won't continue with my stories. That's the deal I made up my mind with, after experiences. Which says, it isn't me that refuse to talk, it's more about how I was stopped from talking. Still I will apply this same method to decide if I shall continue to talk about it. I may show you how I was stopped though...but not now, not under the circumstance.I ever made my progress to almost 2/3 to my story. That is, a guy sensed that I might have something to say, so he (a Christian but not that spiritual enough) invited me to a special website where I managed to talk to 2/3 of my story (2/3 at that moment as things continue to happen afterward). Yet I was disturbed before I made it to a finish.

No. I said "you have assumed that technology cannot reach 'the afterlife' presumably as an explanation for why, despite looking, we haven't found any support for the idea, not me." I must make it absolutely crystal clear to you because you continue to get this so very wrong about my position. There are things we don't know. There are things that technology has not given us access to. I am not denying this, and I revel in it. Is that clear enough? Not at all. I just said that we can study the brain. Not that this therefore proves 100% that god doesn't exist or whatever. I'm not saying that I can say with absolute confidence any given religious experience was definitely a neural phenomenon. I'm just saying that we have evidence that neural phenomena can cause experiences just like those described 'in the wild'. We don't have evidence that some kind of intelligent transcendent being is responsible. So why do you prefer that hypothesis? Why not some other unfalsifiable concept? Why don't you prefer the 'unknown or undetected neural phenomena or something akin to that' explanation? How so? I was just talking about my experiences, the ones I have detailed on this thread. How does that mean all experiences should be viewed the same? I'm just asking for you to detail yours as I did mine. I know. That's why I said that my series of religious experiences were co-related too and I was able to summon up some words to try and express them. So why can't you? It means that I am brutally aware that we don't know everything, and I support spending money on learning more things. This means I am not of the opinion that we know everything now, that present technology or understanding is the pinnacle of all truth or any of the other nonsense you have been trying to tar me with for some reason. No. I even addressed the possibility of false negatives in the next sentence. Which you quoted too and responded to so presumably read. My personal preference has nothing to do with truth. However - my personal preferences are important when it comes to deciding my preferred method of epistemology. As for the thing you think you've already illustrated I couldn't comment since I have no idea how to parse the grammar I'm afraid. I appreciate it is a simple truth to you. I've experienced those same kinds of experiences which are clearly true, and people around me denied those simple truths! How could they? Etc.But anyway - I'm not denying that your experiences were actually caused by God. For all I know they were. I have no idea what they were - other than you claim they involved predicting the future in some sense. Again I ask - is there some reason that even asking questions about your experience and raising alternative possibilities and asking why you prefer yours over the alternatives is so upsetting to you? There has been no unpleasant attack. I have asked questions, you have impugned upon me various motives and opinions which are not true, but I have patiently answered your questions and tried to correct your erroneous view of me and my position.Why do you think an open-minded discussion on this topic is akin to an unpleasant attack? An effective method of defence no doubt. There is no compulsion for you to continue the discussion - and it is not my will that you be forced to continue. I appreciate how difficult it is to have those deeply personal experiences challenged by anonymous internet assholes. You may cease the discussion at any time - but this is a thread where we are putting the claim that religious experiences are evidence for a god/s so if you are going to stick around - get used to it.If it helps at all - I used to cite Matthew 6 when conversations started getting difficult, maybe that might soothe your dissonance? Who is 'we'? Do you want me to show the studies that have explored these kinds of experiences using observation? I don't know. When someone tells you 'they are not both based on faith', then something odd must be going on when you respond 'so you agree they are both based on faith'. Since clearly the agreement is explicitly denied, and to say otherwise is very unusual wouldn't you think? I am not assuming you are equivocating - I am merely asking for you to not take a statement of 'I think x' as agreement that 'not x'. OK? If we can both agree to debate in good faith - then discussion shouldn't be too difficult to achieve, but it means not adding things to what I am saying, making stuff up and generally misrepresenting my position and beliefs.Edited by Modulous, : replied to another orphan post Message 53