Questioning the existence of a god.

Does God exist? Where does the evidence point?

These questions have been residing within my mind for quite some time.

I used to be a christian, but i have always loved science and during my senior year in high school, i decided that i could not believe anything without any solid facts. I have gone to christian schools my whole life, but i decided to open my mind and i am no longer convinced.

I have been reading/watching many books/lectures about athiesm, religion, and their perspectives on science and two people caught my attention. Because of their dogmatic and militant styles, i have found Richard Dawkins and Kent Hovind to be very interesting. I would love to see a debate between the two, but i know that something like that would be highly unlikely. So far, Richard Dawkins seems to have the better perspective supported by evidence, but Hovind is interesting because of all the gaps that he finds.

As an attempt to search for scientific answers, i wanted to post this thread so that anyone can enlighten me with their own opinions, with evidence, about this matter.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Every person has a right to believe in God if they want to. It is up to everyone to choose for themselves whether or not God exists to them.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

In short, the evidence of science rests with the senses and the evidence of theism rests in consciousness.

IOW one requires one work the senses in a particular manner, and the other works the state of being.

For instance, lust, anger, wrath or envy don't interfere with one's ability to look down a microscope.
Similarly whether one is a genius or illiterate doesn't interfere with one's ability to be free from vice.

The reason for the difference is that empiricism deals with inert matter and theism deals with not just consciousness, but god, the supreme consciousness.

While workable in many conditions, its not feasible to expect empiricism to be capable of bridging the gap to god.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What a bunch of nonsense. That which exists only in one's mind does not exist at all. What you really mean to say is that no evidence or lack of evidence will sway you from your preferred worldview.

 

so you think you are only conscious because you are imagining it?
:scratchin:

 

Interesting thing to bring up the sense of consciousness. I agree that it is a mind boggling subject, but psychology is still making progress. There is so much more to discover about how the mind works.

Just because science doesn't understand consciousness now, is it really safe to label it as a work of god? There could be the possibility that science uncovers the mysteries of consciousness in the future.

And there has been research that shows that the "religious experience" can be induced with magnetic fields. This research has been done by a man named Dr.Michael Persinger. He called it "The God Helmet".

If these "religious experiences" can be explained scientifically, then Occums Razor, a principle that states "the simplest answer that explains all the evidence is the best answer", would say that you wouldn't need god to explain it at all.

 

Most paranormal experiences have negative affective themes with emphasis on some aspect of death to others or dissolution of the self.

This is a religious experience?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Of course, in the context of the experiment, it does not seem very religious. Sensing a presence that is not there, distortion of the senses, and such things seem like they are not connected to the "religious experience" at all; it seems more like hallucination. But if you take these ideas and put them within the context of a church, they seem enormously religious.

For example... Imagine a church service during the designated "holy day" (some say sunday, some say saturday). There are elders praying, choirs singing, new-converts praising, organs blowing beautiful music into the air... and one particular man (let's name him john) is exposed to all of these stimuli. John, being a strong and devout believer in this faith, allows himself to be influenced by these stimuli; he (consciously or subconsciously) allows himself to be struck with this "religious experience".

In this setting, the stage is set for this experience, he will experience some, if not all of these things...
1) feel the presence of god beside him (presence of other beings)
2) feel that his senses are being taken over by the holy spirit (being distorted)
3) feel that he has communicated with the spirit (acquiring information from more-than-natural senses)

In a laboratory setting, John may translate these experiences as hallucinations that were stimulated by the God Helmet, but in this particular setting i have just described, John could easily translate the experiences as very spiritual, religious interaction with the omnipotent god of the universe.

This short example of John may have just been thought up in my mind, but it is not far from true experiences like these. Just ask any devout pentecostal christian about their experience of "being saved". They may tell you experiences like these...
- They felt strongly driven to speak in tongues.
- They felt as though the spirit drove them into strong convulsions very similar to epileptic seizures.
- They felt the spirits energy flowing through their bodies like electricity.
- They felt the presence of god as if he were standing in front of them, if not inside them.
- They felt very profound emotions.

Take a look at all of these experiences... They are parallel to Dr.Persingers findings, only more extreme. Dr.Persinger noticed that there are many psychological stimuli within a church service that can induce such an experience. He just wanted to see if he could induce it by himself on command, which he was able to do.

Edit: Also, take a look at the link you just sent me, scroll down till about the middle of the page. The article mentions the religious experience right there in plain sight. It is highlighted and labelled "Experiences of God".

 

huh?
he feels the presence of god?
beside him?

huh?
he feels his senses being taken over?
by god?

huh?

huh?
Pentecostal religious experiences are the yard stick to judge all others?

On the contrary, he is working with an extremely vague definition of religious experience ... you could probably fit mild epileptic seizures in his same category.
:shrug:

When I first observed epileptiform activity over the right temporal lobe of a stable, normal, middle-aged woman who reported (with that typical radiant smile) she had just experienced God's presence,

I see. He observed the "typical radiant smile" and knew with all confidence she had observed god.
Yes.
Very scientific.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I am new to this forum and i don't know how to spread out a quote like that, but i will improvise to continue.

-"he feels the presence of god?
beside him?"

Actually yes..


-"he feels his senses being taken over?
by god?"

Yes again.. People have testimonies of this all the time


-"huh?
Pentecostal religious experiences are the yard stick to judge all others?"

No, Pentecostal experiences are just an extreme example to support my point of the general religious experience. Other milder religious may feel, they are being protected, god is listening to their prayers, etc.


-"On the contrary, he is working with an extremely vague definition of religious experience ... you could probably fit mild epileptic seizures in his same category."

Yes i agree... what he reproduces in a laboratory would indeed be vague, because there are no choirs, mass prayers, strong ministers.. there is only the helmet and the magnetic field. In such a context, any type of experience like that would be vague.


-"I see. He observed the "typical radiant smile" and knew with all confidence she had observed god.
Yes.
Very scientific."

Read carefully, "middle-aged woman WHO REPORTED (with that typical radiant smile) SHE had just experienced God's presence".
In short, SHE WAS THE ONE WHO SAID SHE FELT GOD. she REPORTED the experience herself. He stimulated her temporal lobe and she had the experience. Persinger wasn't merely guessing, he gathered the testimony from his subjects. Gathering data is, in fact, as scientific as it gets. Unless you can read minds, that is the only way to gather such data in psychology, you collect their testimony.

And just to be clear, the ALL CAPS I've used in the previous paragraph is not for portraying yelling or frustration, I just used it to better emphasize my point.

 

Personal testimony does not rank highly in any science. Not even in psychology.

 

how else do you do anything in psychology. i agree, it can be influenced by false testimony, but how then are you going to find anything? Say you want to find the mood patterns of some students after which they are exposed to music. What do you do? you give them the music for however long, then you give them a sheet with all the different possible moods and let them circle the ones they feel. Can they lie on the test? yes, but is there any other more objective way to gather data? no. Again, unless you can read minds, the only reliable source of data is their own testimony.

This is one of the main reasons why psychology is still in a more primitive state than other sciences like biology and physics. Dealing with the mind is a lot more difficult than dealing with atoms and cells.

But more to the point of this thread. You say, hmm.. the psychological data for these experiences is lacking so.. it must be god? how do you conclude that it is god? what evidence points towards god? how do you make such a strong assumption about god? You say personal testimony lacks viability, yet everything from belief in a god, faith in a religion is based on personal testimony. I've heard many believers say, "i've walked with god and talked with god, therefore i know he exists". This sounds an awful lot like personal testimony. What is the evidence of god?

Edit: oh, i'm sorry. I thought i was replying to lightgigantic. Welcome to the thread Signal. Anyways my point still stands. Enlighten me on your opinion Signal, god or no god?

 

And?
You can induce visual experiences with magnetic fields. Does this mean that seeing is hallucinating?

This kind of study is often used illogically to 'show' that 'therefore' religious experiences are really hallucinations.

 

Persinger thinks that God resides in our minds. I understand your point. Just because you can induce it, it doesn't mean that it is not real. i know that, but what evidence shows that it is real? You used the example of vision. I can see, i can read, i can judge distances, i can see objects. If you cause me to see a hallucination, i can still say my vision is real, because i can still do all of those things in my everyday life. However, i don't see a god, i don't see the supernatural, i don't hear gods voice, but you can induce me into experiencing these things. Yet, i still can't see a spirit, i still can't hear gods voice, i still don't sense the supernatural in my everyday life. How then can i believe in a god?

 

I see absolutely no reason for you to believe in God. You are not me however. You do not have my experiences, needs, interests, and no doubt other qualities also such as skills..

As far as your vision being confirmed because of other things you can do with it....

Perhaps the god sense does one thing, like for example that portion of our sensory system dealing with balance.

EDIT: realized my argument was a mess from here on out, so I have changed it.

There are birds that can via the quantum zeno effect 'see' the magnetic fields of the earth. Last I heard - when I emailed one of the scientists involved - there are two instances where life forms are using quantum effects for their own benefit. These birds and certain bacteria in photosynthesis. We are just scratching the surface - I would guess - for how life is using such processes and what they are for. Up until now the technology to test and investigate has been too limited. I think it is too early to assume we know what the functions of certain things are in us. I mention the birds because here the birds might have 'said' Oh, we can see magnetic lines and that's how we get around and other species might respond 'Oh, that's ridiculous, you use sight. You can't see magnetic fields. (or, there is no such thing as magnetic fields)'

Last notice how an argument that could have been taken to show religious experiences are not real, gets defended by saying there is no other evidence. Your position is not dependend on the other position. The argument does not hold. The God Helmet does not show religious experiences are really hallucinations. The issue of whether you should believe in God has nothing to do with the fact that that argument does not hold.

I think it is interesting that we have a portions of the brain or that our brain is sensitive in the way he discovered with his helmet. We have a capability. I suppose it could be like the appendix, some unnecessary offshoot of evolution. But the fact that we have a sensory ability here - one with no uses that I have heard about - seems significant to me.

 

I understand where you're coming from. I am aware that my arguments seem very athiestic, but i am not. I only argue for atheism because others have argued for religion. I am in the middle; i don't know enough to decide whether i should believe or not. That is why i started this thread, to gain knowledge by discussion. I brought up the God Helmet because it shows a way to explain such experiences. That way may be right or wrong, but for the sake of discussion, i wanted to see the opinions i can gather. These studies caught my attention and i wanted them challenged and thanks to others like you, it has been. I am disappointed that there has been no one to argue the other side, i would like to see their opinions as well.

But what are your opinions about god? do you believe?
I have trouble with belief in something for which there is no evidence. How does a person believe so strongly in a god? I tend to lean towards atheism because, if everything in this world can be explained by natural causes, then god is not really needed to explain them. Occums razor cut's god out. There is nothing to convince me that there is one.

What bothers me is that god himself is a very improbable being, much like we are improbable (much much more in fact). The chances that i was built randomly from non-living matter is very low, but the chances of a simple organism being built randomly is much higher. and through evolution, building up more and more complex organisms, here i am. My improbability is explained. The difference is, our improbability can be explained through evolution from simpler organisms which become very probable, but for god, people just accept that he was always there in all his complexity. A god that is omnipotent must be much more complex than I, yet people just accept that he was always there. I can't help but question why?

 

if you check out the icons when you are in a reply (or advanced reply) page you can see a host of small icons on the second row. The third one from the right is a small speech bubble. If you highlight the text you want to appear in quote and press the icon it places [ quote and [/quote at the end so it appears

alternatively you can just type [-q-u-o-t-e-] at the start and [-\q-u-o-t-e-] and the end for the same effect

My point is that this is really vague, and the phenomena you are describing is framed by a host of other issues on what the very word god means - for instance I met someone once who said that when she sees a baby smiles she feels that she is next to god - does this mean researchers investigating the phenomena of god should place their equipment within the vicinities of babies, or people who claim this in the vicinities of babies .... or do you think they should actually nous out what people are meaning when they say the word "god" and begin with a substantial definition before they begin?
Generally in science one identifies a properties qualities and attributes before investigation (like water is wet, for example) . The absence of this in this program makes it unscientific at worst or begging the question at best (IOW it assumes that god is a figment of imagination from the onset)

yes
Kind of like the common adage "opinions are like assholes - everyone has one"

generally to cull the numbers however we analyze the validity of testimonies by specific criteria

the vagueness finds its source not in his controlled environment but in the terms he uses to define the phenomena - this makes it worse since errors at the point of theory (ie defining the subject, etc) expand exponentially as one moves into further speculation.

My point is that his definition of religious experience could also include epileptic fits, since they also involve a diminished sense of self, something takes over one's senses, etc

and he accepted that report on the basis of what?
answer : her radiant smile

BTW my green grocer also reports on incidents in the middle east
So does CNN
And so does the CIA

A body (such as military intelligence) after credible testimony draws info from who?

I don't doubt that his gathering data is a fact.

Its just the relevance of it is shot to pieces by a host of type I and type II errors

 

Sure. Most traditions have practices intended to lead one towards experiences of God. Some people just have them. IOW if you really want to find out and have no experiences, one approach would be to follow a tradition. But you may have no interest.

I don't know how one determines the improbability of such things. I can see how one goes about it with, for example, a set of dice. But once you get to things like the probabilities of gods or humans or even a universe, I have no idea how to weigh the odds.

Nothing wrong with that. I think though some things are based on direct grasping and experiences. So over the gap between you and someone who has very different experiences than you, I am not sure how you could possibly be convinced. Of course there are those who claim not to be base their beliefs on experiences and talk about faith. I find that an odd one. Unless they mean some kind of intuition, but it often does not sound like it when they speak of it.

Yes, I am theist.

 

generally they call it objective criteria

first of all you have a definition of "music" which helps you exclude other noises, such as the sound of commercial airbus taking off, even if the subject is claiming such a sound is music

 

Actually information from the senses help to create consciousness. I do agree the objective world is understood subjectively.

As to the "evidence of theism" - it certainly wouldn't need to ONLY reside in "consciousness". The Gods could create subjective experiences understood through the senses. Actually, the God of the Bible does so all the time.

Lastly, to be fair LG, you would have to agree that "evidence of Xenu and thetans rests in the consciousness too"

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!