A mental exercise for believers in God.

Originally posted by Penguin
From the original post:

[b]The question for you to try to answer is this:

"What evidence would be sufficient to persuade you that God does not exist?"

As a counter example, and in a forlorn attempt to bring this thread kicking and screaming back to its original topic, I came across this essay from the other point of view - some examples of evide ...[text shortened]... e any of the theists on this list that maybe their God does not exist?

--- Penguin.[/b]

Very interesting.
In particualr is this section describing evidence which will NOT convince an atheist of God's existence:

"Saying "I know God exists because I can feel him in my heart" or something similar will not affect me. Most arguments of this sort rest on the assumption that a person cannot have a completely convincing subjective experience and be mistaken regarding its cause, but a look at the diversity of world religions easily disproves this. Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists - members of all faiths claim to have had convincing subjective experiences of the truth of that faith. Obviously, they cannot all be right. Why should an atheist accept any one of these testimonies as more valid than any other?"

Sound familiar, KnightMeister?

Originally posted by howardgee
Very interesting.
In particualr is this section describing evidence which will NOT convince an atheist of God's existence:

"Saying "I know God exists because I can feel him in my heart" or something similar will not affect me. Most arguments of this sort rest on the assumption that a person cannot have a completely convincing subjective experience and ...[text shortened]... y one of these testimonies as more valid than any other?"

Sound familiar, KnightMeister?

Why should an atheist accept any one of these testimonies as more valid than any other?"

Sound familiar, KnightMeister?

...when did I ever say I expected you to find it convincing proof. As I often repeat on this forum no-one can prove God to anyone else , all that can be done is to fight one's corner with coherence and honesty. What I would say is that Christianity has a clear theology built into it which predicts experiences of God's presence and the activity of God's spirit amongst believers . I have yet to some across such a model in other religions that describes my experience with anything like the same accuracy.

No-one can know for sure that God exists. I can't even be sure I exist philosophically. Ultimately everything is faith in some degree or other based on what we feel and think is most likely.

I am well aware that subjective experiences can be misleading , however this does not mean that all subjective experiences are misleading.

Originally posted by knightmeister
What I would say is that Christianity has a clear theology built into it which predicts experiences of God's presence and the activity of God's spirit amongst believers . I have yet to some across such a model in other religions that describes my experience with anything like the same accuracy.

Do you think it is possible that your experiences and your interpretation of them are strongly affected by your beliefs?
For example did you experience them before you became Christian?
Are they experienced by non-Christians?
If you became muslim would you not experience them any more or would you possibly have different experiences which matched the predictions of the Islamic faith?
Don't you find it strange that so many people can have vastly different experiences and yet still find the predictions of it in their faiths?
Isn't there a strong possibility that the Christian religion is modeled around an attempt at explaining certain experiences and thus you would expect it to match the experiences even if the explanation was wrong?

For example I might say "The spaghetti monster makes you sad when you loose a loved one" and sure enough you are sad when you loose a loved one. Does that make the model right?

You are looking at other religions as possible alternative explanations but are you looking at natural causes as a possible alternative?

Originally posted by howardgee
"Most arguments of this sort rest on the assumption that a person cannot have a completely convincing subjective experience and be mistaken regarding its cause, but a look at the diversity of world religions easily disproves this. Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists - members of all faiths claim to have had convincing subjective experiences of the truth of that faith. Obviously, they cannot all be right. "

I don't see why not.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
I don't see why not.

Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists - members of all faiths claim to have had convincing subjective experiences of the truth of that faith. Obviously, they cannot all be right. "

I don't see why not.

Because the Muslim faith says that all other faiths are wrong, and so does the Christian faith, and so does the Jewish faith. Each of these says that there is a single deity wheras the Hindu faith says that there are hundreds of deities and the Buddhist faith says that there are none at all. If any one of these is right, then the rest must be wrong.

Of course there is the other possibility that they are all wrong...

[edit]I've just re-read this and I don't think your are saying that you don't see why the religions can't be all right. Instead, I think you are sayiing that you can't see why the people who claim to have had convincing experiences that persuade them of the truth of their faith can't all be right.

That is fair enough, they may all have have been utturly convinced by their experiences that their particular faith is right. However this says nothing about whether their faith is actually right.[/edit]

--- Penguin.

Originally posted by Penguin
[b]Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists - members of all faiths claim to have had convincing subjective experiences of the truth of that faith. Obviously, they cannot all be right. "

I don't see why not.

Because the Muslim faith says that all other faiths are wrong, and so does the Christian faith, and so does the Jewish faith. .[/b]

What's that got to do with the veracity of any given believer's subjective spiritual experience?

Nothing is true, everything is true.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
What's that got to do with the veracity of any given believer's subjective spiritual experience?

Nothing is true, everything is true.

I've just edited my post because I thought I had mis-interpreted what you said. I think the edited post is now more relevant.

--- Penguin.

Originally posted by Penguin
I've just edited my post because I thought I had mis-interpreted what you said. I think the edited post is now more relevant.

--- Penguin.

I don't quite agree that the faiths mentioned claim that each other are all wrong--some followers certainly would, of course, but there is always an ecumenical strain that allows for overlap, the view that "all religions are one". The Sufis were persecuted by orthodox Islam because they came to believe that esoteric Christianity and Islam were perfectly compatible...

What do you make of CG Jung's peculiar Gnostic experience as related in his Septem Sermones (link below)? Is it applicable to this discussion?

http://www.gnosis.org/library/7Sermons.htm

Originally posted by knightmeister
however this does not mean that all subjective experiences are misleading.

Because the mind never plays tricks, right?!

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
I don't quite agree that the faiths mentioned claim that each other are all wrong--some followers certainly would, of course, but there is always an ecumenical strain that allows for overlap, the view that "all religions are one".

But then they are effectively members of a separate faith even thought they may call themselves by the same name. Even within Christianity there are some denominations that do not consider members of another denomination to be Christian.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
I don't quite agree that the faiths mentioned claim that each other are all wrong--some followers certainly would, of course, but there is always an ecumenical strain that allows for overlap, the view that "all religions are one". The Sufis were persecuted by orthodox Islam because they came to believe that esoteric Christianity and Islam were perfectl ...[text shortened]... k below)? Is it applicable to this discussion?

http://www.gnosis.org/library/7Sermons.htm

I don't quite agree that the faiths mentioned claim that each other are all wrong--some followers certainly would, of course, but there is always an ecumenical strain that allows for overlap, the view that "all religions are one". The Sufis were persecuted by orthodox Islam because they came to believe that esoteric Christianity and Islam were perfectly compatible...

I interpret this phenomena as a sign of the gradual erosion of the power of religion: all the religions are having to face the fact that their different interpretations of reality and history are just as valid as each other, ie not really valid at all.

What do you make of CG Jung's peculiar Gnostic experience as related in his Septem Sermones (link below)? Is it applicable to this discussion?

http://www.gnosis.org/library/7Sermons.htm

I'm not sure if there's a particular bit of that page you were refering to and it seems from my scanning to be an imprenetrable flow of meaningless statements. But then I'm no philosopher!

I've had a quick google on Gnosticism and again, it appears to me to be mysticism with no basis in observable, testable reality. It might be right but with equal probability with Pastafarianism.

Sorry to be so dismissive!

--- Penguin.

Originally posted by Penguin
It might be right but with equal probability with Pastafarianism.

Sorry to be so dismissive!

Heretic!!!! 😛😉😀

Originally posted by Penguin

I've had a quick google on Gnosticism and again, it appears to me to be mysticism with no basis in observable, testable reality.

You generally should try something before you knock it or risk being labelled a bigot.

Gnosticism is a method. You could describe its results scientifically (alpha waves or what-not).

Here's a decent article on it: http://www.gnosis.org/whatisgnostic.htm

"Jung was not only interested in the Gnostics, but he considered them the discoverers and certainly the most important forerunners of depth psychology."

"The questions posed (and answered) by the ancient Gnostics revealed themselves now, not as outlandish and bizarre, but as earlier discussions of issues addressed in more recent times by Freud, Jung, Kierkegaard, Heidegger, and many others."

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Heretic!!!! 😛😉😀

Gnostics were considered heretics because they went against the orthodox grain.

You generally should try something before you knock it or risk being labelled a bigot.

I don't think trying it is always necessary, studying it is and I will admit to having only done an extremely cursory study: I've scanned 2 web pages. Can't get much more cursory than that! But i think I made that clear in my previous post.

Gnosticism is a method. You could describe its results scientifically (alpha waves or what-not).

Here's a decent article on it: http://www.gnosis.org/whatisgnostic.htm

That article says that gnosticism is dificult to define but does list some aspects generally considered common to most forms of gnosticism. This list does not describe any kind of 'method', it is just a list of unfounded spiritual beliefs, similar to those listed in the Wikipedia article I read. Here's the list:

* The Gnostics posited an original spiritual unity that came to be split into a plurality.

* As a result of the precosmic division the universe was created. This was done by a leader possessing inferior spiritual powers and who often resembled the Old Testament Jehovah.

* A female emanation of God was involved in the cosmic creation (albeit in a much more positive role than the leader).

* In the cosmos, space and time have a malevolent character and may be personified as demonic beings separating man from God.

* For man, the universe is a vast prison. He is enslaved both by the physical laws of nature and by such moral laws as the Mosaic code.

* Mankind may be personified as Adam, who lies in the deep sleep of ignorance, his powers of spiritual self-awareness stupefied by materiality.

* Within each natural man is an "inner man," a fallen spark of the divine substance. Since this exists in each man, we have the possibility of awakening from our stupefaction.

* What effects the awakening is not obedience, faith, or good works, but knowledge.

* Before the awakening, men undergo troubled dreams.

* Man does not attain the knowledge that awakens him from these dreams by cognition but through revelatory experience, and this knowledge is not information but a modification of the sensate being.

* The awakening (i.e., the salvation) of any individual is a cosmic event.

* Since the effort is to restore the wholeness and unity of the Godhead, active rebellion against the moral law of the Old Testament is enjoined upon every man.6

The only method implied here is meditation and that can certainly produce intense experiences but those experiences no more support Gnostic explanations than they support Buddhist, Christian, Hindu or Muslim explanations.

Thank's for the link though, I'm now infinitely more knowledgable about Gnosticism than I was when I got up this morning.

--- Penguin.