wdog

In my investigations of religion I have talked with a handful of people like SOMMS who claim the exact same thing as he/she. Feelings of peace, power, mystery, answered prayers ect. One thing these people do not have in common is christianity. My wife (theist) just calls it 'the energy' and pretty much rejects christian theology. She really couldn't care less about formal religion and just enjoys the experience that SOMMS describes.

So having discovered that this god thing has nothing to do with christianity, I also asked people questions about the nature of the experience. No one can offer up any type of proof at all that this isn't some type of meditative self delusion. The bottom line though, is that like SOMMS, you are not going to convince people this isn't god, and most of them don't really care what you call it.

Howay the Toon

"I certainly can share my evidence with you.

I could tell you that my life completely changed. I could tell you about the all-encompassing overwhelming peace that was not there before. I could tell you that I became truly happy where as before I was merely content. I could tell you that God does speak if you listen. I could tell you that *every* time I've really needed help AND asked for God's assistance...I've received it. I could tell you that, on occasion, I have felt God's presence, and it was both a wonderful and terrifying experience. In fact, it is so real that all else pales in comparison.

But of course, if you really wished to...you could disregard all this on the grounds that it is personal. There were no physical instruments measuring it...so it must not be real."

A fairly standard argument for God's existence form Personal experience.

The problems with it are not just that it is not "measurable". It has more problems than that.

1. Precisely the same arguments could be and have, repeatedly, been made by people whose religious claims are totally incompatible with yours. Ask yourself how you would react to a Muslim or a Hindu repeating your claims verbatim.

2. There is a vast Psychology literature describing all sorts of subjective feelings of this kind, some explained, some not. We do not necessarily understand everything in the area of such feelings and internal subjective experience. However we know enough to be certain that they are emphatically NOT reliable as reports of reality (transcendental or otherwise).

emur

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas:
[QB]
This being said what were the attitudes of the people mentioned above who you said sought God?
What are their answers to these questions?

A-Were they were truly seeking God? Yes...it sounds like it.
B-If God did exist, would they acknowledge his sovereign power and authority over everything...themselves included?
C-If God did exist, would they be thankful for everything that God has done for them...namely existence?
D-If God did exist, would they acknowledge that he is worthy of worship?
E-If God did exist, would they worship him?
F-If God did exist, would they willfully submit to the authority of God?

If the answers to any of these questions is 'no' or if these questions seem uncomfortable or distasteful...then one is not ready for a relationship with God. How could they ever hope to have a relationship with God if they can't do the above?

Hi Somms,

B and F are particularly troublesome. Because God doesn't just show up and make his will clear to us in person in language that we can all understand, submission results in giving one's self over to the authority of imperfect humans who claim to speak for God and who claim to rightly interpret sacred writings for their subjects.

Abuse often results from this, from the sexual abuse perpetrated by clergy to the learned helplessness common among those in the pew.

Perhaps you are referring to one's submission to their own subjective experience of the divine with the human authority element removed? If so, you will need to show that this is what you mean.

Mel

Jamie_L

One interesting "problem" with the Personal experience evidence is that, in the case of the OP anyway, the arguement uses the personal experience of the arguer as evidence, but denies the personal experience of those who disagree with the arguement.

Paraphrased, it goes something like this:

If you have the right attitude, you will receive personal experience that verifies the existence of God.

If you do not believe in God, your personal experience on the topic is invalid because you did not have the right attitude. If you claim to have had the right attitude, your personal experience of this attitude is also mistaken.

Shortened even further, the arguement reduces to:

My personal experience seeking God is valid.

Your personal experience seeking God is not.

Jamie

wdog

emur,

SOMMS points that gives me the most trouble is that this loving god likes to hide himself so that we must seek him, and then doesn't care whether or not we find him. nice guy huh?

Amos

What you write may all be true, except for that "the reign of God is already in your midst" and Christianity is not a practice to hone.

Hawkingfan

SOMMS,

Everything you said about becoming a Christian, I would agree with...THE DAY I BECAME AN ATHEIST. I know this may be hard to believe, but I was a God-fearing, practising Christian for over 20 years and never knew what Jesus meant by "the truth will set you free" until the day I became an atheist. A huge burden had been lifted off my shoulders. I became truly happy...etc. Sorry.

Biff the unclean

SOMMS, I gotta say that if you ever were an Atheist then you were different from every Atheist I've ever met.

I certainly can share my evidence with you.
I could tell you that my life completely changed.
According to the claims that are made for the attributes of God he is supposed to be infinite, omnipresent, omniscient, eternal and unchanging. So your complete life change would be evidence against such attributes and not for them.

I could tell you about the all-encompassing overwhelming peace that was not there before.
Your family or close friends should warn you that such statements show only a tentative grip on reality.
Were I to say 'I know Paris exists because I feel mildly amused,' or ' My angst is evidence of the Pacific Ocean,' you would think that I had lost it. And rightly so, as these statements are non-sequiturs. My emotional state is no indication of the existence or non-existence of anything.
And why on Earth would you even want all-encompassing overwhelming peace? Sounds dreadful.

I could tell you that I became truly happy where as before I was merely content.
A state that isn't reflected in your writing on these boards.

What's makes you think that reality will make you happy?

I could tell you that God does speak if you listen. I could tell you that *every* time I've really needed help AND asked for God's assistance...I've received it.
Now you have made a claim that is testable.
Asking God for assistance is an exercise in futility. Take, for instance all of those poor people trapped in the top floors of the WTC. Many of them were asking God for assistance.
Or the most famous case of asking God for assistance. "Let this cup pass me by." Jesus kneeling there in the garden, sweating blood in a fit of hysterical cowardliness. He got a big nothing for a reply. And talk about relationship with God, why Jesus and God were like this (holds up 3 crossed fingers).

I could tell you that, on occasion, I have felt God's presence, and it was both a wonderful and terrifying experience. In fact, it is so real that all else pales in comparison.
Are you saying that you could have taken a snap shot? Or that someone else, in the same room with you, would have seen Him?

But of course, if you really wished to...you could disregard all this on the grounds that it is personal. There were no physical instruments measuring it...so it must not be real.
I'm making the assumption that you are saying that in a rather snide voice, because you know it was real. Frankly it sounds like you are describing a mental problem. Please don't take that as an insult, as it isn't meant to be one. But you don't seem to be talking about anything that is happening outside of your own imagination.

Maybe he's trying to call you back.
How would you ever know unless you listened?
Again this is about your mental state and not reality.
The evidence only appears to you because you are special. All of these other people who aren't as good (good used in it's truest sense) as you are can't see it. They aren't listening.

But of course, they are listening. Most of the Atheists here (and everywhere) are listened very hard. They are still open to hearing.

But they honor the truth. They honor truth over their own egos. They aren't so egotistical to think that they can will evidence into being. They aren't so egotistical to think that they have been picked over everyone else to receive evidence that only they can see. They don't claim to have "powers and abilities far beyond those of normal men."

Listen more closely to God "calling you back" and you will recognize the voice.

It's your own.

Starboy

Hi SOMMS,

I know that others have replied in similar fashion but consider this the more general reply to any number of specific religions.

Ones revelation of ______ is dependent upon their attitude toward ______.

Just fill in the blank. It works for everything; therefore it has no rational utility whatsoever. As an example I choose:

________ == Starboy as god

Ones revelation of Starboy as god is dependent upon their attitude toward Starboy as god.

Essentially it is the following form of reasoning:

It must be true if you believe it sincerely. OR
Believe it sincerely and for you it will be true.

Yet another sterling example of religious rationality.

In Starboy,

Starboy

wdog

amos,

right on man.

by the way i am also for pot legalization.