Proving the Existance of God sans Bible

Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
Your reply is self-servingly glib. It's a charter to believe anything you feel emotionally compelled to believe, without having to raise a finger to justify it.

Explain to me why I must have an experience to understand why having that experience guarantees infallible knowledge about some conventional religious proposition.

When did I say that religious experience gives one infallible knowledge? Are you debating with me or yourself?

Originally posted by whodey
I am not sure how is got to this but it seems we must now accept the fact that we are a bunch of schizophernic crazy people for believing in a God.

Oh well, I've been called worse. It just a good thing we have all of these sane, well centered, atheistic folk around to help us stay grounded, no?

Help us, pleeease help us!!!!

🙄

If the world is mad then to be schizophrenic is actually sane

Originally posted by knightmeister
When did I say that religious experience gives one infallible knowledge? Are you debating with me or yourself?

Okay, suppose it's fallible then. When can it be trusted and when not?

For example, should we consider josephw's experiential intuitions about God to be infallible or fallible?

Originally posted by knightmeister
When did I say that religious experience gives one infallible knowledge? Are you debating with me or yourself?

Okay, how can it yield any knowledge whatsoever?

Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
Right. There is plenty of evidence of people, in the grip of a psychotic delusion, being utterly convinced of propositions that are farfetched. Perhaps beliefs rooted in intense religious experience are simply a milder and better socialized form of this phenomenon.

Another problem is this. Different people claim to have a religious experience that of ...[text shortened]... However, the impartial observer wonders whether the wrongness might be more evenly distributed.

Interesting point, if Islam and Christianity are mutually exclusive then the religious experiences of one of the sets of believers cannot be true. Even more interesting is that this causes more problems for Christians than for Muslims. Muslims regard Christianity and Judaism as imperfect forerunners of their own religion, as such a religious experience for a Christian - that did not challenge their adherence to Christianity - could realistically happen, so the contradiction is ameliorated. Whereas for a Christian to deny that Christ is the one true path to salvation is to cut yourself off from God and so no non-converting religious experience can happen. For Hindus it is barely a problem at all, they have a conception of an underlieing reality of which all religious beliefs, presumably including aetheism, are more or less representative approximations (my understanding is that they regard Christ is an aspect of Krishna) so anyone can have a religious experience without there being a conflict with regard to who is right.

Originally posted by knightmeister
All religous experience is valid to some degree or other the differences occur when different understandings are placed on experiences. But once again until you have had one you are talking off your subject , one can only watch from the outside and wonder what it is that the person "knows".

Do you suppose a doctor must experience a disease to understand it? Should he give up pursuing medicine as long as he remains well?

Experience is not a precondition for understanding in this case. Why should it be when it comes to religious experience?

You haven't explained how supposed inner experience of God delivers knowledge of conventional religious claims. All you've said is one will understand that it does once one has the experience. But what if the experience is misleading, as in the case of psychotic delusions? Do you care about the fallibility of such experiences, which mean that observers are more likely to be right than experiencers?

You claim that "all religious experience is valid to some degree or other" is unclear and unsubstantiated. Give me an example of its being valid, please, along with proof it is valid.

Why are you and josephw putting "know" in quotes? Are you scared of being tied down to its conventional meaning?

Originally posted by whodey
I am not sure how is got to this but it seems we must now accept the fact that we are a bunch of schizophernic crazy people for believing in a God.

Oh well, I've been called worse. It just a good thing we have all of these sane, well centered, atheistic folk around to help us stay grounded, no?

Help us, pleeease help us!!!!

🙄

That's exactly what this thread is about. Well done.

Originally posted by XanthosNZ
Proving the Existance of God sans Bible

Existence

Originally posted by knightmeister
If the world is mad then to be schizophrenic is actually sane

That doesn't follow.

Originally posted by Nordlys
That doesn't follow.

You're right. Which schizophrenic is right about reality?

A related link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Three_Christs_of_Ypsilanti

Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
You can only acknowledge in the first place something you believe to be true (and arguably, only something that is actually true too, if that acknowledgement is to be successful; but let this complication slide).

But you believe it to be true that everything your senses perceive is a reflection of God the creator.

Hence, your knowledge that God e ...[text shortened]... sure you are not merely a victim of a delusion here? Or perhaps the fallacy of question-begging?

Not exactly. I did not know that God existed until I acknowledged that what I perceive is his creation. Even though I was told there was a God I did not know it until I believed he was the maker of all things.

I have been a victim of delusions. I know the difference.

Originally posted by josephw
Not exactly. I did not know that God existed until I acknowledged that what I perceive is his creation. Even though I was told there was a God I did not know it until I believed he was the maker of all things.

I have been a victim of delusions. I know the difference.

How can you acknowledge something you don't beleive is true? Until you believe X is true all you can acknowledge is the 'possibility' of X.

Originally posted by XanthosNZ
That's exactly what this thread is about. Well done.

Just trying to say what you want to hear. Cheers!

Originally posted by TheSkipper
How can you acknowledge something you don't beleive is true? Until you believe X is true all you can acknowledge is the 'possibility' of X.

So believing X is true makes it so? I don't know about you but I have believed many things in my life that just did not cut the mustard in the end even though I thought I had plenty of "proof" at the time. My faith in God, however, has not been one of those things. It is one of those things that demand belief before it proves itself real to you. In other words, God demands that your free will desire him to reveal himself to you...that is if you desire him. Otherwise he would be violating your free will.

Originally posted by whodey
Just trying to say what you want to hear. Cheers!

Is it possible to prove the existance of God? Does Christianity rely on faith without knowing?