Is there a God?

[rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrqwef43]

.

[HAL9000]

Rubsley - it seems that many people are unable to comprehend the concept of subjective spiritual experience that you describe. I think I know what you mean having experienced something similar.

I know from personal experience that, for example, most people cannot dream lucidly or project life-like images in their mind's eye or experience unique events and encounters in deep reverie ? it is all but impossible to share such subjective experiences.

Everyone's brain is wired up differently: some of us understand - others don?t have a clue.

[Huguenot]

Whilst that's true, that's not the issue from my part - I simply see no reason to ascribe that to a god, or proof that one exists.

[HAL9000]

As rubsley says, you seem to be arguing against an unseen opponent - he certainly hasn't made any such assertions, as far as I can see.

If one accepts that subjective spiritual experiences (SSEs) are real albeit psychological phenomena then one must also accept that they are valid subjects for rational discussion and scientific research, surely?

SSEs may well explain why spiritual ideas were already pervasive at the Dawn of Human Consciousness. It could be argued that the ability to foresee one?s own mortality that comes with self-awareness must be counter-balanced by a belief in an afterlife - otherwise our early ancestors would have had no motive to survive?

Primal spirituality (i.e. primitive religious beliefs) may have been the essential ingredient that catalysed man's differentiation from the animal kingdom.

[Huguenot]

I think the title of the thread is 'Is there a God' rather than 'Have you ever got spaced out'.

SSEs that you describe are essentially internal events that give no support to the argument that 'there is something else out there' (which is a quote from rubsley).

I don't see that 'self-awareness must be counter-balanced by a belief in an afterlife' - I'm as self-aware as my ancestors and have no such belief.

I think such a belief is simply a coping strategy, a desire. And as I said before, wanting something to be true doesn't make it true. It provides no evidence that there is a 'god'.

[silverfox]

I have to agree with Huguenot here. I don't think the idea of subjective spiritual experience really helps us here in trying to answer the question 'Is there a God'.

Subjective spiritual experience is just that - subjective. It could be the ramblings of a mad man, or caused by illness, hallucinogenic drugs or a propensity to believe in the Divine. There is a reason the Vatican is cautious every time someone says they've seen, spoken with God or is the beneficiary of a miracle. Religious belief can verge on plain old mass hysteria (eg moving/weeping statues).

If God exists, that would be an objective fact. It may be an objective fact beyond our limited comprehension. But no matter how sincere a person may be referring to a personal spiritual experience of God it does not provide the proof necessary to convince a sceptic.

[HAL9000]

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I don't see that 'self-awareness must be counter-balanced

> by a belief in an afterlife' - I'm as self-aware as my

> ancestors and have no such belief.

We have had the benefit of thousands of years in which to rationalise our beliefs - I was referring to the first humans who attained self-awareness without any previous experience to insulate them from the stark reality of mortality.

> I think such a belief is simply a coping strategy ...

Perhaps that's exactly what it was for our earliest ancestors - they might not have been able to survive otherwise having lost the benefit of pre-programmed survival instincts? We can?t compare them to ourselves on equal terms, I suggest.

> It provides no evidence that there is a 'god'.

We are 23 pages into this thread - surely we have progressed beyond the blindingly obvious and mundane to something a little more insightful - I think the quest for objective evidence was exhausted some twenty pages ago, wasn't it?

SSEs may shed some light on how and why humans evolved such a deep-rooted propensity to believe in the Divine? It so happens that they are the only empirical evidence we have in this entire field of research.

[rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrqwef43]

.

[Huguenot]

Eh rubsley? That's a logical impossibility.

It's also beside the point, being self-aware is an internal issue. My disagreement with you is in the concept that a personal experience is evidence of something being 'out there' (which is what you have postulated).

I don't doubt that an unusual experience can make you want to believe in god, I simply disagree that it is evidence of the existence of a god.

There are many reasons to want to believe in a god, most of which are mundane. In fact, it's best to attribute anything you don't understand to a god, because to do otherwise is to bear witness to you own shortcomings.

[Jeremy]

Surely you have to already consider yourself to be "spiritual", and at least have some level of latent belief in order to interpret these experiences as a sign from God?

Wouldn't an aethiest seek to find another - any other - explanation?

[PeckhamRose]

I have a hard time trying to work out my spirituality because as an atheist I just can't explain or understand what it means.

Edited to add: I had an out of body experience when I was a very very sick little girl and close to death. But I am sure I remember from a documentary somewhere that scientists can now induce the feeling and experience of the white light that some people who are close to death report seeing, the implication being, I think, that everything we experience may be able (if it has not been already) to be explained scientifically. Just as thunderstorms and rainbows have been.

Have tried to read all the pages on this thread; there are some very interesting knowledgeable people out there on this here forum and I have learned a lot from you all by reading them. My answer to the OP though is still a "NO!"

[rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrqwef43]

.

[rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrqwef43]

.

[Huguenot]

Rubsley, having failed to make any successful argument about the existence of god, I see no reason why we should just assume that you are right and discuss what role god should play in our lives.

As with most god botherers you're moving into the bullying bulldozing area.

That's the snake oil peddler insisting we should move on from calling him a fraud, and start discussing how many uses snake oil can be put to.

Secondly, you have no foundation in trying to claim that the essence of god is a personal spiritual experience. There are huge movements, not least the disagreement between Catholicism and Protestantism, who cannot successfully resolve this issue. Hence your insistence in point '2' would fall into the area at I described earlier as 'grandiose claims' that you deny.

In point '7' you seem to decide that god is in fact just another word for a personal spiritual journey, or perhaps a metaphor for the objective of that journey. This is another 'grandiose claim' that is not generally shared by those that believe in god.

On point '11' I can find no evidence that anyone made a comment about God not wanting someone to smoke. I need you to find this for me, as I suspect you made it up. I shall unreservedly retract that if I'm wrong. However if I'm right it will make me wonder how much else you have made up to support your story?

On point '17' you seem to be quoting the film 2010, which is as transcendental as a Hollywood scriptwriter.

On point '29' you're even starting to use the first person plural as if you're talking on behalf of other people e.g. 'the grand set of ideas that we've chosen to call god'. This is delirious narcism. Your ideas are not generally shared by others, and you shouldn't be referring to your own views in that Queen Victoria way: 'WE are not amused'. Do you have delusions of grandeur? A touch of the Koresh about you?

Most of your assertions seem to be rather bizarre rambling self-regard.

I don't deny that you had some kind of 'experience', I simply see no reason why that entitles you to tout it around as evidence of god and start claiming that it gives you some sort of elevated moral and philosophical position on the meaning of life.

On self-aware you're simply talking crap. As with most words in a shared language there is a generally accepted meaning. In this case self-aware means the ability to take an objective position to judge your past, current and future thoughts and behavior against an abstract set of concepts.

In other words it is impossible to be at the limit of self-awareness, because the act of consideration puts in place a new set of thoughts and behaviors to consider. Hence it changes your self awareness etc.

You seem to be confusing self-awareness with self-realization, and you seem to be unable to recognize that self-realization is not a fixed set of criteria.

In your case the pinnacle of self-realization seems to be twirling in the meadow with daisies in your ears. Since that is the farthest you've come, your self-regard has caused you to assume that's the pinnacle of self-realization. That's another one of your grandiose statements.

[Huguenot]

PS I love this one: "If I have a religion it is the one from the future..."!

That's right, because you are the messiah!!!

[mockney piers]

Nice redefining of the debate.

It's called begging the question.

Given alllllllll those givens then I have/can have nothing more to offer.

I'm off to start a thread entitled 'ghosts definitely exist and I will allow no contradiction; right what exactly are ghosts and what are your experiences with them'.

[Jeremy]

Rubsley - I don't think statements like "how about the nit-picking atheists go find some other bone to chew on" are helpful. It just sounds as though you can't be bothered to listen to opposing points of view. You can't come into an existing debate and say "stop arguing with me, because I'm right"! Surely as a former aethiest, and an intelligent bloke, you must have already wrestled with all the apparent contradictions?

If you want a conversation based around the central premise that God exists, then this is not the right thread for it. And it's not one that I'd be interested in, tbh.

[rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrqwef43]

.

[HAL9000]

I think rubsley's contributions are as valid and interesting as anyone else's on this thread (and subject) - it's not as if anyone else knows any better or is it the case that only atheists' opinions count - surely not?

[Jeremy]

HAL - I agree that rubsley's contributions are as valid as anyones... I just didn't like the suggestion that the aethiests stop arguing, and we move onto a discussion about God and the spiritual realm.

rubsley - the contradictions I refer to have been covered in detail on this thread, but for example... the fact that the existence of an omnipresent being would seem to violate our scientific knowledge, and that there is no evidence pointing towards such a phenomenon - yet many accept is as fact. Did you have these thoughts back in your aethiest days? If so, you would be presumably well placed to counter such arguments.

[HAL9000]

At the risk of repeating myself:

Most, if not all, of the surviving ancient religions promote gods who insist on blind faith in return for some sort of afterlife reward. If such a god did exist, he would have created a universe in which his subjects would be unable to prove his existence.

Therefore, within that context, the argument that lack of scientific evidence is evidence of non-existence is invalid - the logic is reversed.

One can choose to believe or not through the exercise of free will but no argument based solely on scientific evidence can decide the issue.

All of the existing evidence for faith-based beliefs is derived directly or indirectly from subjective spiritual experiences - such as, for example, divinely inspired scriptures and prophecies.

As for contradictions - for an omnipotent god, they are features not flaws.

[rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrqwef43]

.

[Jeremy]

HAL - thanks for the input, but I wasn't exactly tying to re-ignite the debate on science/evidence, etc (we've all made our opinions clear on that one). Rather, I was trying to probe further into rubsley's conversion, and how a former aethiest would reconcile his old views with his new enlightened knowledge. Or would he just say "I was wrong", and carry on...

[Huguenot]

I appreciate you find it boring rubsley, but if you want to get more out of the conversation I think your own position needs to be a bit more coherent.

You seem to confuse several distinct concepts: for example self-awareness, self-actualization, self-realization, consciousness and enlightenment.

You seem to confuse philosophy with spirituality, and mysticism with theology.

You confuse a process such as scientific method, with a discipline such as physics or chemistry.

You confuse ambiguity with insight, and precision with ignorance

You make many claims for your definition of god, and then cite as your allies a number of historical figures who would be hard pushed to agree with each other, let alone yourself.

[HAL9000]

Jeremy - other posters have recently rebutted theists with the rationalist, scientific evidence argument - Silverfox and Huguenot, for example, appear to be caught in that gyre. You?re not alone :)

Just trying to free your minds - there is NO spoon!