Gurdur

There has been only one large study on this so far.
The numbers of believers who are claimed to have undergone "genuine transformative experiences" is grossly inflated --- on an order of roughly 60 % of all believers asked, IIRC ---- by self-reporting melodrama and very loose criteria; when the criteria for "transformative experiences" is tightened up to something meaningful, the number drops right down to 10 %.

Now tell me why 90 % of believers have no genuine transformative experiences.


Also, transformative experiences are not limited to believers; unbelievers experience them too (under the tight criteria given), however unbelievers interpret them differently.

Same experiences, different interpretations.


You just don't like the CoE because they're Sassanachs and you're a Puritan Scot.

However, they are still a religious church.

Volker.Doormann

You are writing in a forum where people discuss about the existence of god(s) in a thread about the suggestion, that religious experience of religious people about god is a chemical function in a brain computer.

Because from this was argued, that some paranormal phenomena must be bullshit, I have presented an in detail well documented provable real case of paranormal future telling doormann.org/ladydi.htm happened in this world to prove that claim wrong.

That is the context.

Nothing of your arguments - including your capital letters - was of any scientific significant coherence to this context. My personal opinion is not a subject to discussed in this context.

Volker

Worldtraveller

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Metacrock
[B]No I agree that we should be skeptical of extraordinary claims. The problem is, why assume that belief in God, or some religious attitude toward being, or some idea of something beyond the material realm is an extraordinary claim? In some sesne perhaps, but what do you use as a base line to say "this kind of cliam(sic) is extraordinary and this kind isn't?" Well you can't use belief or thereof as the benchmark, that's not only circular reasoning, but also flys in the face of human experience. Most people who have ever lived have been religious. To then try to make out that religion is somehow anti-scientific and strange is absurd.
This is probably going to cross the boundaries of several other threads here, but what evidence do you have to support this claim? If humankind, in some form or another, has been around for at least several million years, who's says there have been more religious than nonreligious people? And even if there were, the 3 main monotheistic religions would still be in a significant minority. I can do some population research and come up with numbers, but even just a little logical thought makes this seem like an absurd assumption.
I just discovered this board today, and have already put off doing some things to keep reading...great stuff!
Traveler

Wyz_sub10

Worldtravelor,

Welcome to II! Please make yourself at home and take the opportunity to introduce yourself in the 'Welcome' forum.

Cheers!
Wyz_sub10,
EoG Moderator

Darkblade

Volker.Doormann: I guess you really did not understand what I wrote. It seems likely to me that you equate "unlikely" with "impossible". All the fallacies to you, mate!

Volker.Doormann

EOD

joedad

Maybe because I just finished watching "Oh Brother Where Art Thou," I'd like to know how the brain of a believer associates music and god-belief. That soundtrack is intoxicating.

Toss some god-belief in with some personally pleasing sounds and god gets pleasant too. Maybe there's a connection. We've not been harmonizing for long, but generally we seem pretty predisposed to enjoy it. I think god-belief is somehow similar. Religion and Music enjoy a symbiotic relationship these days, generally speaking.

joe

Refractor

Apparently you don't listen very well because I have already stated, more than once, that if my intention was to make a formal argument for this possiblity being an actuality, I would go through the trouble of formulated indepth explanations. But that is not my intent. I was simply proposing this idea as one of many possibilities.

Babble? I don't think so. In order for an idea to graduate into the class of being "babble", you'd have to prove that it is *false*. An unproved idea is not babble - its just speculation. But since you are anti-supernatural bigot, we should not be surprised that you choose to categorize it as "babble".

LOL, this is called LEGAL evidence. In a court of law, eyewitness testimony is a form of evidence. And yes, if there was a crime, the more eyewitnesses that testify against the perpetrator, the better the prosecutions case becomes. So in a court of law, "argumentum ad numerum" is a legitimate form of legal evidence if it pertains to eyewitness testimonies.

There are millions of crimes committed everyday, but each crime only has a handful of witnesses. There are billions of people that did not witness OJ kill his wife, but does that mean he didn't do it? It seems to me that you don't understand how legal evidences work.


LOL! People have seen physical objects move with no physical explanation for how or why they would move. I have seen these things happen personally. Also, there have been multiple eyewitnesses to the same supernatural events. It's more likely that the events were real than the idea that the two or more people had the same mental illusion simultaneously.


My particular concept of God is irrelevant since you deny ALL concepts of god. Also note - I never once claimed that the frontal lobe would be "proof of god". I'm simply pointing out that IF the frontal lobe did have some connection with a spiritual realm, theism would have explanatory power regarding the phenomenon. That is really the only point I have intended to make all along.

Obviously I believe all inductive reasoning *does* support the existence of a Creator God, or else I wouldn't a theist.


It's a personal issue that varies from person to person. I have met atheists that told me that unless God physically appeared and told them directly - "I am God and I am real", they would never believe. For him, that was the only form of evidence he would accept. Everybody seems to have different standards for what they think evidence for God would be. That is why I get a chuckle out of all you guys who love to harp about "there is no evidence of God". That is one of the most meaningless statements you can make, unless you include a descriptive criteria for what you think would constitute "evidence for God" in the first place.

As I have said before, I am not a Scientismist. I accept many different forms of evidence including, scientific, natural, logical, legal, inductive, deductive, etc. I have seen enough proof from all those forms of evidence to believe that it is more likely that a God exists than that some mindless natural force exists that randomly belches out universes, or causes complex lifeforms to randomly self-create out of non-living chemicals.

And I have already told you several times that my objective was not to "prove" that the frontal lobe is a spiritual antenna. My intent was to offer my opinion that that may be one of many possibilities. A possiblity is not in need of proof, because there are many things that are technically possible for which there is no proof. (Like the idea that Saddam would have never succesfully developed nuclear weapons, for example.)

Hawkingfan

True. But not all possibilities are equally reasonable. That is why we have Occam's razor. Anyone can make up any old explanation that cannot be disproved, but it may be pretty low on the believability scale, because it is not scientifically reasonable.

Mageth

Apparently you don't listen very well because I have already stated, more than once, that if my intention was to make a formal argument for this possiblity being an actuality, I would go through the trouble of formulated indepth explanations. But that is not my intent. I was simply proposing this idea as one of many possibilities.

I'll repeat: until you or someone else can do that, you're talking pseudoscientific babble.

Babble? I don't think so. In order for an idea to graduate into the class of being "babble", you'd have to prove that it is *false*.

Leaning towards an Argumentum ad ignorantiam, I see. Your "idea" is a valid idea until I prove it false?

You've got it backwards. In order to graduate the idea from the rather large class of "pseudoscientific babble", you'll have to provide evidence supporting its possibility. Until then, it remains an undergraduate.

An unproved idea is not babble - its just speculation.

Not all unproven ideas are babble, no. But this one is, and will remain so until evidence and possible mechanisms are provided. As will other such pseudoscientific ideas.

But since you are anti-supernatural bigot, we should not be surprised that you choose to categorize it as "babble".

Interesting that you're all hepped up over me categorizing your idea as "pseudoscientific babble", yet you do not hesitate to categorize me as an "anti-supernatural bigot." (BTW, that's a bit of an Argumentum ad Hominem.)

LOL, this is called LEGAL evidence. In a court of law, eyewitness testimony is a form of evidence.

If not personally presented, it's called "hearsay evidence" and is not allowed. Since your claim is merely that "billions of people throughout history have witnessed such and such", your claim is simply hearsay evidence, and an Argumentum ad Numerum. And in addition, an appeal to anecdotal evidence. Unless you want to call those billions of people to the "stand" here (and they would still be presenting anecdotal evidence).

Anecdotal or "eyewitness" evidence is remarkable in its general unreliability. Other more concrete, reliable evidence is typically required to make a case; the more serious or fantastical the case, the more "real" evidence is required.

And yes, if there was a crime, the more eyewitnesses that testify against the perpetrator, the better the prosecutions case becomes. So in a court of law, "argumentum ad numerum" is a legitimate form of legal evidence if it pertains to eyewitness testimonies.

Interestingly, in a court of law, both sides can present witnesses. Their testimonies often conflict, and part of the Jury's responsibility is to sort out what or who is believable from what or who is not.

You need to watch the movie Twelve Angry Men (the original version, with Henry Fonda) sometimes, if you haven't already.

There are millions of crimes committed everyday, but each crime only has a handful of witnesses. There are billions of people that did not witness OJ kill his wife, but does that mean he didn't do it? It seems to me that you don't understand how legal evidences work.

It seems to me that you don't understand that this is not a courtroom or a trial, nor do you understand the concept of "hearsay" evidence. Here, your "billions" claim is an Argumentum ad Numerum, and a fallacy.

I'm not claiming that these billions of people didn't witness such-and-such an event that happened to other people (e.g. as in a trial witness), but that they have never had what they would seriously consider some kind of "paranormal" experience.

If a "receiver" for supernatural experiences is "built in" to our brains, how would you account for this discrepancy? Why doesn't everyone experience the same thing?

LOL! People have seen physical objects move with no physical explanation for how or why they would move.

LOL! And you claim this is not "babble"? Anecdotal evidence again, and of no use in this discussion. Is that the best you can come up with?

People claim to have seen physical objects move with no known physical explanation for how or why they would move.

There's a big difference, no? If you ever get in a courtroom, you'd best learn how to correctly word your phrases, and to not rely on anecdotal or hearsay evidence, or else you'll get torn apart.

I have seen these things happen personally. Also, there have been multiple eyewitnesses to the same supernatural events. It's more likely that the events were real than the idea that the two or more people had the same mental illusion simultaneously.

Again, a bit of an argument from ignorance. "The supernatural explanation must be real because I can't believe two or more people can be deluded simultaneously! Not only that, I've witnessed such an event, don't know of a natural explanation for it, therefore what I experienced must have been supernatural!"

(It's well known that two or more people can indeed suffer an illusion simultaneously, BTW)

And as for "Also, there have been multiple eyewitnesses to the same supernatural events," you're assuming your conclusion in your argument. "I object. It has not been established by the defense that these eyewitnesses indeed witnessed a supernatural event."

In addition, this is merely more anecdotal evidence, which adds nothing to your argument.

My particular concept of God is irrelevant since you deny ALL concepts of god.

It's simply not true that I "deny ALL concepts of god," so this is a bit of a strawman, I'm afraid. I admit that some concept of god(s) are possible. It's just that I require good evidence to accept any concept of god as probable or existent. I do, perhaps, "deny" some particular concepts of god, such as the rather contradictory general Xian concepts of God.

In your post you proposed a god that:
- exists (obviously)
- created the universe
- created humans
- desires a "spiritual relationship" with humans
- created humans with a unique capacity for such a spiritual relationship

That does not describe any possible god(s). Indeed, it fits nicely with the Christian concept of god.

Also note - I never once claimed that the frontal lobe would be "proof of god".

You definitely appear to be leaning that way with comments such as "Obviously, we are dancing on the periphery of a very large subject, which is the existence of God" and "Indeed, the existence of God is the real issue here."

I'm simply pointing out that IF the frontal lobe did have some connection with a spiritual realm, theism would have explanatory power regarding the phenomenon. That is really the only point I have intended to make all along.

I'll repeat, rephrasing: Even if the frontal lobe does communicate with some sort of spiritual realm, that is not proof (or even strong evidence) that god(s) exist, and even more so not proof (or strong evidence) that your particular concept of God exists. All one could deduce from this is that a spiritual realm exists. Whether a god or gods exist there to communicate with, and which particular god(s) exist, are different hills to climb.

Obviously I believe all inductive reasoning *does* support the existence of a Creator God, or else I wouldn't a theist.

Since inductive reasoning can also be used to support the non-existence of a Creator God, you appear to be wilfully blind.

It's a personal issue that varies from person to person. I have met atheists that told me that unless God physically appeared and told them directly - "I am God and I am real", they would never believe. For him, that was the only form of evidence he would accept. Everybody seems to have different standards for what they think evidence for God would be. That is why I get a chuckle out of all you guys who love to harp about "there is no evidence of God". That is one of the most meaningless statements you can make, unless you include a descriptive criteria for what you think would constitute "evidence for God" in the first place.

My take on it: if God exists, she would know what evidence would convince me, and presumably be willing to provide it. As I've not seen evidence that convinces me of God's existence, I conclude either that god doesn't exist or that she's unwilling to provide the evidence to me.

And if you think there is such evidence, please provide it. This question is asked over and over here, and as of yet I haven't seen it answered.

As I have said before, I am not a Scientismist. I accept many different forms of evidence including, scientific, natural, logical, legal, inductive, deductive, etc. I have seen enough proof from all those forms of evidence to believe that it is more likely that a God exists than that some mindless natural force exists that randomly belches out universes, or causes complex lifeforms to randomly self-create out of non-living chemicals.

Self-organizing systems are so much more than "random". The "random" charge is "one of the most meaningless statements you can make".

And let me ask you: what evidence would it take to convince you that what we see was created by "mindless natural forces" and not generated by God?

I get a chuckle out of you guys who love to harp about "there is no evidence of mindless natural forces generating complexity".

And I have already told you several times that my objective was not to "prove" that the frontal lobe is a spiritual antenna. My intent was to offer my opinion that that may be one of many possibilities. A possiblity is not in need of proof, because there are many things that are technically possible for which there is no proof. (Like the idea that Saddam would have never succesfully developed nuclear weapons, for example.)

A possibility is in need of at least some evidence before it can be taken seriously, esp. an extraordinary "possibility" like this one. It is not established that the spiritual realm exists, and until it is, posing a spiritual realm "possibility" as an explanation for the activities of the frontal lobe will remain pseudoscientific babble. And don't bother regaling us with any more anecdotal evidence, appeals to numbers, or any other such fallacious arguments. They're not in the least convincing.