Is there evidence your god beliefs are true while other god beliefs are false?

[plumjam]

It's a bit like homoeopathy then, really.

Yeah, as in fish and bicycle.

 

[Mashuna]

Yeah, as in fish and bicycle.

As in ways of knowing.

 

[plumjam]

In many of these reports regarding profound religious experiences, awakenings, enlightenments or extraordinary experiences of unity (east and west), the basic knowledge gained seems to be that god is pretty much equated with reality, or existence. If god is reality, then there’s really no point of proving gods existence, is there?

Up for grabs are the interpretations and manifestations of how people ought to live their life. It has nothing to do with the existence of god, but a whole lot to do with how god (reality) is acknowledged in the minds of humans.

“I am that I am”, “Before Abraham was, I am”, “Atman is Brahman”, The Dao that can be spoken of, is not the real Dao” etc. etc… Pretty hard to argue against that or create an idol that would encompass that. Yet people do exactly that, and I have no idea why – kind of like arguing against reality while pissing against the wind. There’s an old saying: one who sets out to find god, finds himself and one who sets out to find himself, finds god. The experience of I am seems to be the beginning and the end to this journey.

Finally!
Someone who knows what they're talking about. Respect

I would add that the experience of I am at the end of the journey is (they report) an entirely other experience from our ordinary everyday experience of I am.
(Our current experience of I am being that of a finite human ego attached and limited to a particular mind/body..etc.. and the I am at the end of the journey being infinite in nature.)

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Finally!
Someone who knows what they're talking about. Respect

I would add that the experience of I am at the end of the journey is (they report) an entirely other experience from our ordinary everyday experience of I am.
(Our current experience of I am being that of a finite human ego attached and limited to a particular mind/body..etc.. and the I am at the end of the journey being infinite in nature.)

That's amazing. So, how do you tell the difference between meeting God and a hallucination?

 

[Henners]

Finally!
Someone who knows what they're talking about. Respect

I would add that the experience of I am at the end of the journey is (they report) an entirely other experience from our ordinary everyday experience of I am.
(Our current experience of I am being that of a finite human ego attached and limited to a particular mind/body..etc.. and the I am at the end of the journey being infinite in nature.)

Woo.

I could see it coming.

 

[Mashuna]

I would add that the experience of I am at the end of the journey is (they report) an entirely other experience from our ordinary everyday experience of I am.
(Our current experience of I am being that of a finite human ego attached and limited to a particular mind/body..etc.. and the I am at the end of the journey being infinite in nature.)

Well, if there are a number of these beings who are now infinite in nature, I guess it would explain the queues at the post office.

Are all these beings over 75? I think I've met them.

 

[plumjam]

As in ways of knowing.

More fish more bicycles.
What does homeopathy have to do with it? That's a form of physical therapy, and is therefore amenable to scientific testing.
Inner spiritual development, being confined to the consciousness of that individual, is not.

 

[plumjam]

That's amazing. So, how do you tell the difference between meeting God and a hallucination?

According to those who have been there meeting God marks the end of being fooled by the hallucination we're all currently being fooled by, including you and me.
So, in short, God realisation is the only non-hallucination.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

According to those who have been there meeting God marks the end of being fooled by the hallucination we're all currently being fooled by, including you and me.
So, in short, God realisation is the only non-hallucination.

What evidence is that based on?

 

[Mashuna]

More fish more bicycles.
What does homeopathy have to do with it? That's a form of physical therapy, and is therefore amenable to scientific testing.
Inner spiritual development, being confined to the consciousness of that individual, is not.

Don't let homoeopaths hear you say that! Trying to force your notions of materialistic testing upon them - for shame.

No, our current testing paradigm is insufficient to comment on homoeopathy. We know that there is an effect (because of our personal experiences), and we know that scientific testing shows that there is no effect.

Therefore, homoeopathy must logically be based on something that is currently (maybe permanently) outside of the realm of scientific testing. It probably acts in a quantum manner, directly on the consciousness of the individual. This realignment leads directly to the holistic healing of the patient.

Although it's not currently testable by boring old science, which keeps coming up with the wrong answer, there are well defined, tried and tested methodologies for knowing about it.

The problem is that they take much more time, effort, and commitment of the whole person than merely flicking open a textbook or some such.

 

[plumjam]

What evidence is that based on?

What forms of evidence would you be willing to accept as valid?

 

[plumjam]

Don't let homoeopaths hear you say that! Trying to force your notions of materialistic testing upon them - for shame.

No, our current testing paradigm is insufficient to comment on homoeopathy. We know that there is an effect (because of our personal experiences), and we know that scientific testing shows that there is no effect.

Therefore, homoeopathy must logically be based on something that is currently (maybe permanently) outside of the realm of scientific testing. It probably acts in a quantum manner, directly on the consciousness of the individual. This realignment leads directly to the holistic healing of the patient.

Although it's not currently testable by boring old science, which keeps coming up with the wrong answer, there are well defined, tried and tested methodologies for knowing about it.

The problem is that they take much more time, effort, and commitment of the whole person than merely flicking open a textbook or some such.

Tut tut.
Silly.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

What forms of evidence would you be willing to accept as valid?

Quite an long list. For example:

If the God figure could make specific and precise predictions about the future with no failure rate.

If the God figure could modify the universe in reality defying ways that would be called "miracles."

If all people who had such an experience consistently had the same experience, without any mutual contradiction.

 

[Darth Rotor]

But in as much as you think I'm more interested in theist bashing than simply challenging theist beliefs, you are wrong about the thread and about me, of which the latter is frequently the case.

Funny, you consistently are wrong about me. Maybe we ought to get married. (That was a jest.)

Why do you participate in the JREF forum?

Because I feel like it, and because I tend to find intelligent people with whom to bat around ideas. Many of them look at the world differently than I do, which offers my brain a chance to wrap itself around problems from multiple points of view.

You have a problem with that?

I assume you are not here to support one of the usual woos like homeopathy or 911 conspiracy theories. That would imply you are here because you are a skeptic of some kind.

I arrived here from the best page in the universe, via a link, to the 9-11 CT page, and the Loose Change tomfoolery. Upon assessing what was up, I went into attack dog mode for a very specific purpose. For reasons of varying weight, I then checked out a few other forums and found a lot of interesting stuff to discuss.

I also found some friends.

Would you also say the following?

You want to be an astrolger? Good for you.

Go for it. Whatever rows your boat.

Homeopathy brings you the peace of good health? Go for it.

Sure. My sister in law is huge into it. If it kills you, the joke's on you, eh?

Bigfoot your bag? Wallow in your joy.

The Quest for the Holy Graille (or Bigfoot) seems to be a human trait that has stood the test of time. Everyone needs a hobby. Mine is golf, and for the last year or so, kicking around stuff on this set of forums.

"Loose Change" to your taste? Enjoy.

Absolutely. And enjoy the flames whey you make idiotic attempts at describing how the towers went down, since free speech is a neat thing: you are free to say whatever you like, and free to be criticized for it. You are also free to follow Rule Number One, which is

Never overlook a chance to keep your mouth shut. (I've had trouble with that rule from time to time.)

My core objection to "Loose Change" is the slander against certain persons about whom I care, and the general willful ignorance in pursuit of that slander. As a pilot, I cannot fathom how hard some folks try to deny some very simple things, like gravity, lift, and such. The motive is best left to the various CT discussions. I think Gravy is a great guy.

I think Morgan Reynolds, for example, is a whack job. He is free to be one. I have advised my sister in law that her kids, who go to A & M, ought to be wary of signing up for any of his econ classes, due to his penchant for moonbattery. As to him personally, I hope it makes him happy. If all his obsession with the 9-11 nonsense only makes him angrier, he's wasting a lot of energy.

His choice.

Put in a general position, we all have the freedom to go to Hell in our own special and peculiar way, or to arrive elsewhere, or nowhere, in a like manner.

You have a problem with that?

I'm certainly not angry at people for their beliefs.

Good. Your tone is consistent in that regard.

And I only get mad at the beliefs like the anti-vaxers who essentially attack my profession and lead parents away from vaccinating their kids.

I share some of your frustration with that, but not being in the field, I suspect your frustration is more profound than mine.

But that doesn't mean I wouldn't challenge any of those beliefs which are relatively harmless. Of course I would. I want to promote critical thinking.

Interesting cover story.

If you don't want to discuss why one god belief is valid and another invalid, perhaps you'd care to justify why those god beliefs you mentioned are peachy, but other woo may be challenged?

I see that your attempt at equivalence between philosophy and medicine arrives on schedule.

Note: if three billion people die tomorrow, all at once, it would not matter in the greater scheme of things. In the short term, there would be much suckage, and much sorrow, and doubtless much fear.

There would still be three billion people, and a bit more, on the Earth, who could pick themselves up, dust themselves off, and keep on keeping on.

DR

 

[Mashuna]

Tut tut.
Silly.

Well yes. That's my point.

 

[plumjam]

Quite an long list. For example:

If the God figure could make specific and precise predictions about the future with no failure rate.

Not asking much then, eh?

Spiritual personalities do show signs of being able to predict the future. It seems that they generally don't avail themselves of this ability. Or keep it to themselves. Typically their main preoccupation is helping mankind towards spiritual advancement, rather than satisfying idle curiosity.
However, on the occasions when predictions have been made and carried out, such as Fatima http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_the_sun
the skeptics simply carry on looking for reasons to dismiss such events. So, really, why should they bother?

If the God figure could modify the universe in reality defying ways that would be called "miracles."

In the Roman Catholic Church alone there are more than 10,000 saints. As I understand it to be a saint you need to be associated with at least 2 miracles. So no shortage of miracles out there.
But would you believe them?
I doubt it.

If all people who had such an experience consistently had the same experience, without any mutual contradiction.

Your desire for "all" and "without any mutual contradiction" is unrealistic. Nowhere in life is that to be found.
However, spiritual experience is described very similarly across cultures and historical periods.
For evidence read William James' The Varieties of Religious Experience, and Evelyn Underhill's Mysticism.

 

[plumjam]

Well yes. That's my point.

You took an intersubjectively investigable phenomenon like homeopathy and tried to equate it with an intersubjectively non-investigable phenomenon, namely internal spiritual experience.
That was the silly part.
Can't you see the difference?

 

[Henners]

In the Roman Catholic Church alone there are more than 10,000 saints. As I understand it to be a saint you need to be associated with at least 2 miracles. So no shortage of miracles out there.

However, the quality control on the miracle pass rate is governed by God-of-the-Gaps.

Thus we had, for example, a miracle being counted towards JPII's canonisation until it was found out that for JPII to have organised the event he would have needed to travel back in time to when he wasn't dead yet.

Woo.

 

[Henners]

You took an intersubjectively investigable phenomenon like homeopathy and tried to equate it with an intersubjectively non-investigable phenomenon, namely internal spiritual experience.
That was the silly part.
Can't you see the difference?

The only kind of phenomena that cannot be investigated are ones that don't exist.

Can you see where you made the mistake?

You were using words without considering their meanings. Again.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Not asking much then, eh?

Not from an omnipotent, omniscient being.

Spiritual personalities do show signs of being able to predict the future. It seems that they generally don't avail themselves of this ability. Or keep it to themselves. Typically their main preoccupation is helping mankind towards spiritual advancement, rather than satisfying idle curiosity.
However, on the occasions when predictions have been made and carried out, such as Fatima http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_the_sun
the skeptics simply carry on looking for reasons to dismiss such events. So, really, why should they bother?

Because people with ciritical thinking skills have no reason to believe in them, and without verifiable evidence, people can believe all sorts of things.

In the Roman Catholic Church alone there are more than 10,000 saints. As I understand it to be a saint you need to be associated with at least 2 miracles. So no shortage of miracles out there.
But would you believe them?
I doubt it.

Miracles that have left no evidence.

Your desire for "all" and "without any mutual contradiction" is unrealistic. Nowhere in life is that to be found.
However, spiritual experience is described very similarly across cultures and historical periods.
For evidence read William James' The Varieties of Religious Experience, and Evelyn Underhill's Mysticism.

How is it unrealistic to expect an omnipotent, omniscient, good being to provide constitent revelations? The god of the Pauline letters bears no resemblence to the god of Exodus, who bears to resemblence to the god of The Book of Job, let alone the gods of other religons. If mystical experiences constitute evidence of supernatural beings, why can they be induced by oxygen deprivation, mental trauma, and chemicals, and why are they so variable?