Can you prove God's non-existence(question only for atheists,if possible)?

[Jameson]

2) that people are generally ignorant about the most reliable experience we have that "something more" might exist (i.e., union experience)

That is where I usually have disagreements with people. Having an experience may be a great way to justify something to one's self, because you yourself went through it, but to everyone else I wouldn't say is credible. I can't understand your experience (I mean you in a general sense) and I just don't see how that can be used as an explanation.

People have weird feelings all of the time. We all worry about our loved ones. We all think of the worst case scenarios in our head and dread them, only to find out most of the time nothing bad happened. But what I've noticed is that the few times someone has one of these feelings and it does happen, that's all he/she can remember. It's like God spoke to that person and gave him/her a message.

Personally, and I know this is not a happy way to look at it, I think people's feelings and personal "experiences" cloud judgment and rational thinking.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Personally, and I know this is not a happy way to look at it, I think people's feelings and personal "experiences" cloud judgment and rational thinking.

That is certainly true, however, this is also true of personal bias - the need to believe that their is no God.

 

[Jameson]

Right, biases cloud open minded thinking. No disagreement there.

When I get in discussions with people about religion, what makes me want to get up and leave is when the other person says, "I just know." That's what I was talking about. Relying on personal "experiences" or feelings to justify something otherwise irrational.

Of course this comment is biased by my own personal views. I think it's impossible to write an opinion that's unbiased.

 

[totallyclueless]

Perhaps we are one tiny organism living inside of another organism? Just a thought. I mean, look at a cell. To whatever lives in a cell, it would seem to huge and infinate and unexplainable. But to us, it's so small you have to look at it with a microscope! I mean, an atom. Smallest building block of life. But what makes up an atom? And what makes up that? and what makes up that? and so on and so forth. do you get what I am saying?

 

[Swampeast Mike]

Can you give an example of what you mean?

Infinite examples should this be true.

Photons are the result and consequence of matter that is shared between separated bodies.

 

[Chronos]

Shouldn't this be a philosophy thread? I'm more accustomed to addressing unexplained phenomenon, unusual observations and outlandish interpretations in this niche of the forum.

 

[Les Sleeth]

That is where I usually have disagreements with people. Having an experience may be a great way to justify something to one's self, because you yourself went through it, but to everyone else I wouldn't say is credible. I can't understand your experience (I mean you in a general sense) and I just don't see how that can be used as an explanation.

Okay, but let's put things in context before getting off on stuff I didn't mean to say.

We are talking about proving the existence of God, and I think everyone generally accepts that the meaning of "proof" as used for this thread means empirical proof. Empirical proof has standards which must be met, and one of those is that whatever is proposed to exist must be "observable."

What does observable mean? It means to use the senses to directly witness either an event or indications by machinery designed to magnify or otherwise expose something beyond direct observation; also implicitly implied is that not only can you observe it, others must be able to as well.

The relevant points are: 1) all empirical proofs are dependent on sense data, and 2)whatever can be observed with the senses must be external to consciousness.

The senses give consciousness sense experience. With the senses we "feel" temperature and pressure on the skin, and in a way we "feel" smells, tastes, sounds and sights too in the sense of our nerves being sensitive to such information. To understand where I'm going with all this it's important to see that the signals senses carry are one thing, and what happens when they reach consciousness is another. Consciousness is what "experiences" and the senses are avenues set up to feed consciousness info from the outside world.

If we clearly distinguish between what can stimulate experience, and experience itself, then we might ask: Is consciousness capable of any other type of experience besides sense experience?

For example, if there were a way to remove sensory input, say even beyond what sensory deprivation devices achieve, is there anything left to experience? You might say there's the intellect and emotions. Okay, let's say we could turn them off too. In that rare inner silence, is anything left NOW to experience?

First, if there is, you cannot find out until you achieve that silence. Second, if there is, that experience happens from within experience itself, and so by definition it cannot be externalized for others to observe. If you experience something in that silence over and over for many years, you might have proven to yourself something, but you will never be able to prove to others you experience something there.

And you know what. . . who cares? If I have to wait until I can convince the world, or you or anybody that my inner experience is trustworthy, then I'll be nothing but a big mass of self doubt.

So the way such "inner" proofs work is, I prove it to myself, you prove it to yourself, Ivan proves it to himself . . . If you are someone who has faith in that inner thing, then you will work at strengthening that certainty by pursuing inner experinece; and you aren't going to waste your time trying to empirically prove something that is neither experienced with the senses nor externalizable.

People have weird feelings all of the time. We all worry about our loved ones. We all think of the worst case scenarios in our head and dread them, only to find out most of the time nothing bad happened. But what I've noticed is that the few times someone has one of these feelings and it does happen, that's all he/she can remember. It's like God spoke to that person and gave him/her a message.

You are talking about mental confusion. Just because someone attributes something to God doesn't mean they know anything about God, or that somehow it's a reflection of everyone who says they experience God.

If someone says he has an invisible white cat, does that mean all people who claim to own a white cat are deluded? Joe McCarthy claimed to be a patriot. Does that mean John McCain, who claims to be a patriot, is just like him?

Personally, and I know this is not a happy way to look at it, I think people's feelings and personal "experiences" cloud judgment and rational thinking.

That doesn't make sense. You cannot possibly escape your personal experience. It is you every waking moment (and maybe even while you sleep). Take that away and you are nothing but a computer. Of course, that is one's right, and some people do seem so afraid to feel they choose to become like a computer.

When I get in discussions with people about religion. . .

Ahhh, but we weren't talking about religion, we were talking about God. And that was one of my points, that people can't seem to distinguish between the two.

. . . what makes me want to get up and leave is when the other person says, "I just know." That's what I was talking about. Relying on personal "experiences" or feelings to justify something otherwise irrational.

How do you know you love your mother? Do you "just know"? Can you prove it in a laboratory? If not, then is your love an illusion? Love isn't rational, love is a feeling and there are legitimate feelings and deluded feelings, just like there is rational thought and irrational thought. Why mix up the two realms (feeling and rationality)? They are completely different, each with its own rules for knowing.

 

[Jameson]

Thank you for your response.

As for the main part of your statement, I agree. Our personal experiences give us our perception of our reality. The point I was making is that some of these experiences can be validated by other means (math, science), and some cannot. When I say that I had an experience with God this could be valid, but someone else cannot vouch for that experience. It is completely within my own senses, not the senses of the universe like many common accepted things are.

You are talking about mental confusion. Just because someone attributes something to God doesn't mean they know anything about God, or that somehow it's a reflection of everyone who says they experience God.

If someone says he has an invisible white cat, does that mean all people who claim to own a white cat are deluded? Joe McCarthy claimed to be a patriot. Does that mean John McCain, who claims to be a patriot, is just like him?

Mental confusion was exactly my point. I believe that personal experiences lead to biases and irrational thinking. To further my statement, I would say that the fact that we have sense perceptions really makes it impossible to have an objective thought, but we can dwell into that more if you wish.

That doesn't make sense. You cannot possibly escape your personal experience. It is you every waking moment (and maybe even while you sleep). Take that away and you are nothing but a computer. Of course, that is one's right, and some people do seem so afraid to feel they choose to become like a computer.

Correct you are. The thing that seems to make us as humans so distinct from the rest of the animal kingdom are our complex thoughts, emotions, and importance of our personal experiences. I believe that this is our greatest attribute because it gives us independence, free thinking, and imagination, but I also consider it to be our greatest flaw. We could never think as rationally as a computer.

How do you know you love your mother? Do you "just know"? Can you prove it in a laboratory? If not, then is your love an illusion? Love isn't rational, love is a feeling and there are legitimate feelings and deluded feelings, just like there is rational thought and irrational thought. Why mix up the two realms (feeling and rationality)? They are completely different, each with its own rules for knowing.

I would love to talk about love for days, no pun intended. Just to post a little comment, I think the reason love is such a hard ground to debate on is because most people's definition of love is completely different from other's, which makes it hard to define generally. I would call love a combination of emotions felt for someone and the understanding of acceptance and forgiveness even when the person does not deserve it. I cannot prove my mother loves me, as I cannot prove many things, but I do not believe she loves me purely based on my senses, but more of what I see her do - her actions.

Ahhh, but we weren't talking about religion, we were talking about God. And that was one of my points, that people can't seem to distinguish between the two.

Sorry to not be clear, but I wasn't implying that you were talking about religion. I was merely giving a common example of personal experiences giving as a reason - faith versus other methods of knowledge.

Jameson

 

[zoobyshoe]

U might suspect this, but i was merely wondering if there is any science behind this suspicion. For instance any research that indicates meditation can indeed cause seizures, or even that breathing techniques can cause seizures. I suspect if these were the case, meditation would be banned by now.

As I said, the hallucinations that some beginners experience during meditation are ascribed by the roshis to poor breathing techiques. They instruct the novice to adjust their breathing accordingly.

Seizures can, indeed, be caused by anoxia, lack of oxygen, and also by hyperventilation. It is standard practise during an EEG to have the patient hyperventilate to see if this triggers any seizure activity that can be picked up by the electrodes.

In addition, seizures seem to arise most easily during sleep, or during periods of rest after exertion. Part of the EEG involves telling the patient to relax as much as possible and calm their mental activity in so far as they can, much as a person does in meditation, to see if this produces any seizure activity.

Meditation isn't banned because, if people are having seizures from meditation, they're never more serious than simple partials, which most people in the general population already have once in a while anyway. In general the benefits of it outweight any risk of seizure harm. The focus and discipline the meditator acquires, and the general mental calm they can bring from it to their daily lives, is really what it's all about.

I do not think this example is relevant. U talk about it being "the best case against jumping to the conclusion that everything that comes out of meditation is automatically good".

The relevance is that a pathology was mistaken for enlightement.

Well first of all, of course not everything that comes out of meditation will be good. (there must be some bad side effects )

Some people get serious hemorroids, yes.

Secondly, the fact that this guy developed a brain-tumor, cannot be seen as a result of the meditation itself, neither can the fact that it was discovered too late.

No one is blaming the brain tumor on the meditation. Don't erect straw men.

The fact is wasn't discovered earlier was, in fact, directly related to the meditation. It was a bunch of idiot amateurs who didn't know what they were doing, and couldn't tell the difference between his odd behavior and an enlightenment.

Thirdly, the link between braintumor and the sensation of enlightenment cannot solidly be demonstrated by this case.

The connection between his feelings of bliss and the brain tumor are not in any doubt whatever. It is the typical symptom of frontal lobe syndrome.

Im sure there have been people that meditated while having a migraine, a headache, an ear-infection, or a broken leg for that matter.

I'm sure there have, but what do these have to do with anything?

 

[eNathan]

That is where I usually have disagreements with people. Having an experience may be a great way to justify something to one's self, because you yourself went through it, but to everyone else I wouldn't say is credible. I can't understand your experience (I mean you in a general sense) and I just don't see how that can be used as an explanation.

People have weird feelings all of the time. We all worry about our loved ones. We all think of the worst case scenarios in our head and dread them, only to find out most of the time nothing bad happened. But what I've noticed is that the few times someone has one of these feelings and it does happen, that's all he/she can remember. It's like God spoke to that person and gave him/her a message.

Personally, and I know this is not a happy way to look at it, I think people's feelings and personal "experiences" cloud judgment and rational thinking.

you cannot prove God exists based on someone else's experience, I fully understand it when people say that. Alot of people, however, claim they have had some sort of experience with God. It is hard to say from a scientific aspect weather or not God exists. I personally believe there is a devine being that exists. Yes, I am a Christian, but do I claim to know that God exsits with 100% assurity, not at all. I know its still theoretical, that's why we call it "faith", not "fact". Although some people may say its "blind faith", but I don't agree with this notion.

I guess only you can judge weather or not God exists. In my opinion, its imposible to be a true atheiest beacuse you cannot prove God doesn't exist. And you can't say he doesn't exists just because you don't want him to exists.

 

[zoobyshoe]

1. I have also read some accounts of people that walk around with these experiences for long periods(hours/days/months). How long do seizures generally last?

The briefest seizure lasts just a split second. The longest recorded seizure I've ever read about lasted something over 18 years.

Anyone who has epilepsy (recurring seizures) is at risk of going into a seizure that won't stop without medical intervention. A condition of constant seizing like this is called status epilepticus. It is not rare.

2. Also, what are the actual symptoms of seizures? Surely, hallucinations alone are not the only symptom (the case which u described (Dostoevsky) for instance, also saw an aura).

You misunderstood. In epilepsy an "aura" is the simple partial seizure that preceeds a more serious seizure. During the "aura" the person is fully conscious and aware of their surroundings, although they will be having some peculiar experience or another depending on where the seizure focus is in their brain. When the seizure progresses, their consciousness becomes clouded, or they may be completely unconscious, and they won't remember anything afterward except the aura.

The most common simple partial seizure symptoms are:

Intense fear or dread
Deja Vu (everything seems superfamiliar)
Jamais vu (familiar things seem strange and foreign)
Peculiar sensations in the stomach
Micropsia (things look smaller and farther away than they should)
Macropsia (things look bigger and closer than they should)

Less common are:
Uncontrolable crying
uncontrolable laughing
uncontrolable rage
feelings of euphoria
feelings of ecstasy

There are many more different ones having to do with the illusion of physical sensations, and also with autonomic symptoms, like profuse sweating, irregular heartbeat etc.

3. Also, many people who experience these things without meditation, only experience them once. Is there some kind of disease that causes once-in-a-lifetime seizures?

According to one survey, nearly 100% of the population reported having at least one simple partial seizure symptom. At least 1/3 of the people I know have had a deja vu at least once.

You don't need a disease to have a seizure. Seizures can result from temporary screw-ups in your hormones and/or brain chemistry due to bad diet, say, coupled with lack of sleep and stress.

4. And finally, these kind of experiences can be life-changing events for the experiencer. Do seizures cause permanent braindamage?

This question sounds sarcastic.

Anyway, yes, seizures can cause brain damage, in severe cases. If you go into status with a grand mal seizure you can die.

What is more to the point is that all seizures permanently change the responsiveness of neurons from normal to "touchy". Each seizure a person has makes it easier for the next seizure to occur. Once a neuron gets entrained into a seizure it "learns" to seize and has a lower seizure threshold: it will take somewhat less of a stimulus to set it off the next time.

 

[pbj59]

proof

Can some of you tell me what it you would accept as absolute proof without question that GOD exists? If that happened, do you think people would believe it 2000+ years from now? Even if it is documented by several different people?

 

[Chronos]

If God writes me a check for 1,000,000 and it clears the bank... I will believe.

 

[godzilla7]

I saw a tv program about how spiritual feelings can under the right conditions be felt by anyone, in the program they got a group of subjects from all over the religous spectrum to test their spirituality or aptness to experience feelings of spirituality. Even the most ardent sceptics could sometimes be made to feel a sense of being in the presence of something god like(this was done by stimulating certain areas of the brain). This suggested that the brain throughout it's evolution has become hard wired to be spiritual, and the programme went on to say that there has been some evolutionary advantage to belief systems. Bonding communities, establishing rules for the common good etc, etc. for me this moves me towards a disbelief in God, and this is just a product of evolution ,but then I can not dismiss that it may not of been God's plan to have us find him.

Atheism for me is too much hard work as is belief in God, sounds lazy but if I cop out and say I just don't know it saves me the mental effort of finding or losing god. Effort I can use to learn about the important things.

Life is absurd and has no real objective meaning(I think Camus and Sartre had this right although, I think Camus: enjoy and live forever idea was better than Sartres: life's pointless suicidal bent) if that's the case why even bother look for God, let's just enjoy the moments, here and now in the finite fragment that is life, and leave the bigger issues to God, let him work out whether he exists or not, I'm sure when he's come to any firm conclusions he'll let us know

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Therefore, for example, if the brain can be stimulated in such a way that one hears a sound, we can conclude that there is no such thing as real sound? Mental illness aside, that these spiritual experiences can be duplicated in the lab only shows that the perception of these experiences can be real - claims as such are not necessarily false memories or lies. It doesn't imply that no genuine experiences are found; only that the claimed state of mind, or the perception of this experience is possible.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Therefore, for example, if the brain can be stimulated in such a way that one hears a sound, we can conclude that there is no such thing as real sound?

There is a difference between sense perceptions and emotional reactions.

Here is a statement:

One plus one is three.

Person A hears it correctly and gets angry because it is absurd and inaccurate.

Person B hears it correctly and laughs because it is absurd and inaccurate.

Which one had the valid emotional reaction?

"Feelings of spirituality" can be evoked by input from the senses but it doesn't follow that what was sensed was inherently spiritual any more than what was sensed by Persons A and B above was inherently infuriating or inherently amusing.

Our capacity to have "spiritual feelings" doesn't mean there is anything inherently spiritual in existence to react to. The emotional reaction a person has to information coming in through the senses is pretty much idiosynchratic to their personality.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Our capacity to have "spiritual feelings" doesn't mean there is anything inherently spiritual in existence to react to.

I never said that it is. I only said that your example cannot be taken as proof in the negative - that no spiritual experiences are genuine.

The emotional reaction a person has to information coming in through the senses is pretty much idiosynchratic to their personality.

I never used the word emotion.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I never said that it is. I only said that your example cannot be taken as proof in the negative - that no spiritual experiences are genuine.

My example? When you said this weren't you responding to godzilla?

I never used the word emotion.

Godzilla used the phrases "spiritual feelings" and "feelings of spiritualty."
Weren't you responding to that?

 

[Nomy-the wanderer]

So?? Any proofs yet?

 

[PIT2]

So?? Any proofs yet?

Yes, we finally proved that God exists

 

[PIT2]

The most common simple partial seizure symptoms are:

Intense fear or dread
Deja Vu (everything seems superfamiliar)
Jamais vu (familiar things seem strange and foreign)
Peculiar sensations in the stomach
Micropsia (things look smaller and farther away than they should)
Macropsia (things look bigger and closer than they should)

Less common are:
Uncontrolable crying
uncontrolable laughing
uncontrolable rage
feelings of euphoria
feelings of ecstasy

There are many more different ones having to do with the illusion of physical sensations, and also with autonomic symptoms, like profuse sweating, irregular heartbeat etc.

After reading those symptoms, I am starting to wonder if my entire life hasnt been a seizure...

 

[zoobyshoe]

After reading those symptoms, I am starting to wonder if my entire life hasnt been a seizure...

Hmmmmmm...ever hit your head really hard against anything?

 

[zoobyshoe]

Broad overview of seizures:
http://www.epilepsyscotland.org.uk/aguidetoepilepsy/aguide_4.htm

 

[Les Sleeth]

Broad overview of seizures:
http://www.epilepsyscotland.org.uk/aguidetoepilepsy/aguide_4.htm

Zooby . . . your comparison of seizures to what can be achieved through meditation sounds like it's written by someone with an anti-inner agenda who knows nothing whatsoever about meditation. Why would you would assert such speculative nonsense?

 

[zoobyshoe]

Zooby . . . your comparison of seizures to what can be achieved through meditation sounds like it's written by someone with an anti-inner agenda who knows nothing whatsoever about meditation. Why would you would assert such speculative nonsense?

Read my previous posts in this thread. I'm not asserting "speculative nonsense". I don't know what an "anti-inner" agenda might entail, or what you mean by it.

I am also not against meditation at all. I actually went through years of reading about the Buddhist discipline. However, I happened to have first learned, not the Buddhist discipline, but TM back in high school, and to the extent I practised it, it changed me considerably. I became a much more relaxed person than I had been, and it took a lot of the edges off the daily things that used to bother me.

I've read extensively about Zen Buddhism, and it strikes me as even better than TM because it fosters more discipline and focus that a person could carry into their daily life. In addition, Zen, at least the schools of it I'm familiar with, very much downplays the "enlightenment" experience, because they know that people who sit there waiting to be enlightened are wasting their time. The meditator's focus should be on the present, here and now. You may know the story: the seeker of knowledge goes to the master, who is engaged in measuring out flax, and asks, "Master, what is the meaning of life?" The master replies: "Three pounds of flax."

My "initiation" session into TM was a stunning, stunning experience. They prepare you with a few lectures, then you have an appointment to go in individually for your first meditation where they give you your mantra. You bring a piece of fruit or flower or something which the guy set in a basket. Then he did a brief sort of sing/chant thing, that I found to be kind of embarrassing. But then he leaned down close to me and said the mantra. I just sat there. He got a touch nervous, because I was supposed to start repeating it aloud but didn't realize it, so he said "Say it!"

So, I said it aloud a couple times, and he told to me to now just repeat it in my head.

When I started to do that, I was completely amazed to feel all the muscles in my body start to relax, almost against my conscious control, until I felt like a limp rag doll with only enough strength to stay seated in the chair. This was the most intensely pleasurable feeling I'd probably ever had: releasing tension I'd held for years. And I left in a state of mild euphoria.

Later, in my 20s, I picked it up again, and tried to do it at least once a day over a period of a few months. I never had the same intense experience I had the first time, but what happened was that all my senses, and especially my vision, seemed to sharpen up. Everything looked so much more vivid, solid, and real, as though I'd had some sort of film removed from my eyes. My assessment of that was that it seemed the less active my interior monolog was, the more the attention went to sensory imput.

So, that's the nutshell story of what I know about meditation. More than you assumed, I think.

 

[Jameson]

Les, you didn't respond to my post. I thought we were going to have a nice discussion.

 

[Les Sleeth]

I don't know what an "anti-inner" agenda might entail, or what you mean by it.

I mean: trying to trivialize something that people have devoted many years to becoming skilled at by comparing it to a brain malfunction. I suspect you were taking aim at religion, but you still have to be careful not to over generalize.

Some people in religion are caught up in beliefs. "Belief" is a mental thing, and you can tell when someone is a believer because they think only the absolute perfect Bible-supported belief will get them into heaven.

But there are others who aren't so worried about the perfect belief. They are after a certain feeling. When it feels right, they are rather flexible about how someone chooses to interpret that feeling.

So, that's the nutshell story of what I know about meditation. More than you assumed, I think.

Indeed. I can tell you that the initial height of your experience in meditation is quite common. One's mind isn't prepared for it, so a newbie naively opens up and has a grand experience. But then the mind figures it out, and takes over again. That's why only a dedicated practice can succeed.

The secret of that experience you loved is to learn to be still and open, to completely relax and surrender one's defenses. It is extremely difficult (impossible IMO) to do that fast. Life is and has been threatening, so the natural thing is for our defensive methods to reestablish themselves after an "opening up."

My own progress, in fact, was one of achieving a new level of openness in meditation, and then my mind SLAMMING me hard for the next couple of weeks. But I didn't give up and kept pushing my mind to let go; it didn't give up either and kept slamming me back. Now, 32 years later, I have tamed that foul-tempered beast. He doesn't protest at all anymore, and just kicks back and enjoys the ride.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Les, you didn't respond to my post. I thought we were going to have a nice discussion.

I didn't see that there was much more to say. I was tempted to take issue with your belief that personal experience only distorts, but that's a tough subject which I don't have time to debate at the moment. We'll interact I'm sure in other threads.

 

[Chronos]

Interesting. But in the spirit of science, do any testable predictions result from this logic?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

My example? When you said this weren't you responding to godzilla?

Godzilla used the phrases "spiritual feelings" and "feelings of spiritualty."
Weren't you responding to that?

I was responding to what you just said. I even quoted you.