How do you determine those who actually know God from the rest?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Are people who claim to know God liars?
- Thread starter Nakosis
- Start date
If you saw certainty in my post, you read it wrong.
Yes i believe you are wrong about the atheist default position. Its not that an atheist knows nothing about god, it's that there is no god to know about.
I voted "Other" in the poll on the grounds that there are at least about a dozen positions that happen to be more insightful than the OP.
It's always amusing when someone in apparent possession of remarkably little knowledge of an issue leaps like a parasitically crazed donkey to the conclusion that the adults in the room are "liars" or "deluded". So very human! We most of us probably all do it now and then. Still, it's always funny -- even when it's also dangerous and obnoxious.
However, I am no more a fan of the notion that anyone's scriptures are necessary proof of deity than I am a fan of my neighbor blaring Justin Bieber at three in the morning. I think arguments that this or that "Holy Book" proves the existence of one god or another are no stronger than gnats, and not much more interesting than gnats, either.
Yet, what's it to me if someone wants to have faith they aren't being hornswoggled by a holy book? So long as they don't do anything to interfere with my rights and liberties, I think I'm obliged to tolerate their faith. After all, few things are more dangerous and obnoxious than the thought police.
Having said all that, it should be noted here that there are plenty of people -- I'll call them "mystics" -- who claim that a deity exists not on the grounds that a holy book or scripture is infallible, but rather on the grounds that they have had direct, unmediated experience of that deity.
Now, some folks dismiss these mystics as suffering from "delusions", but they mostly give reasons for believing mystics suffer from delusions that could be just as applicable to saying we all of us might be deluded in many of our common experiences. For instance, they might say something along the lines of "Well you don't know if your experience of deity was a brain fart or not", but we really don't know if our experience of love is a brain fart either.
The core mystical experience can be characterized (but not explained) as an experience that comes about when subject/object perception abruptly ends and is replaced by a perception of oneness*.
I am just as convinced that people who have had mystical experiences and interpreted them as experiences of deity genuinely believe they are experiences of deity -- and are therefore anything but liars -- as I am convinced that the OP of this thread was thoughtlessly jerked out without anything even approaching sufficient consideration of the issues it raises.
For the record, I myself do not think the mystical experience is conclusive proof of deity -- however, I agree with those who say it certainly raises the possibility of deity since it can neither be proven nor disproven to be an experience of deity.
____________________________________
*Anyone who is intrigued by the mystical experience can find enough about it to start a food-fight in a monastery by reading these articles, which were written by one of the world's foremost authorities on G-String Theory**:
**G-String Theory sadly has nothing at all to do with the mystical experience.
It's always amusing when someone in apparent possession of remarkably little knowledge of an issue leaps like a parasitically crazed donkey to the conclusion that the adults in the room are "liars" or "deluded". So very human! We most of us probably all do it now and then. Still, it's always funny -- even when it's also dangerous and obnoxious.
However, I am no more a fan of the notion that anyone's scriptures are necessary proof of deity than I am a fan of my neighbor blaring Justin Bieber at three in the morning. I think arguments that this or that "Holy Book" proves the existence of one god or another are no stronger than gnats, and not much more interesting than gnats, either.
Yet, what's it to me if someone wants to have faith they aren't being hornswoggled by a holy book? So long as they don't do anything to interfere with my rights and liberties, I think I'm obliged to tolerate their faith. After all, few things are more dangerous and obnoxious than the thought police.
Having said all that, it should be noted here that there are plenty of people -- I'll call them "mystics" -- who claim that a deity exists not on the grounds that a holy book or scripture is infallible, but rather on the grounds that they have had direct, unmediated experience of that deity.
Now, some folks dismiss these mystics as suffering from "delusions", but they mostly give reasons for believing mystics suffer from delusions that could be just as applicable to saying we all of us might be deluded in many of our common experiences. For instance, they might say something along the lines of "Well you don't know if your experience of deity was a brain fart or not", but we really don't know if our experience of love is a brain fart either.
The core mystical experience can be characterized (but not explained) as an experience that comes about when subject/object perception abruptly ends and is replaced by a perception of oneness*.
I am just as convinced that people who have had mystical experiences and interpreted them as experiences of deity genuinely believe they are experiences of deity -- and are therefore anything but liars -- as I am convinced that the OP of this thread was thoughtlessly jerked out without anything even approaching sufficient consideration of the issues it raises.
For the record, I myself do not think the mystical experience is conclusive proof of deity -- however, I agree with those who say it certainly raises the possibility of deity since it can neither be proven nor disproven to be an experience of deity.
____________________________________
*Anyone who is intrigued by the mystical experience can find enough about it to start a food-fight in a monastery by reading these articles, which were written by one of the world's foremost authorities on G-String Theory**:
Mysticism is a Whore: Allow Me to Introduce You (A general article outlining what the mystical experience is, and surrounding matters).
Can a Mystical Experience Tell Us Anything About God (An article that directly address some of the issues raised in the OP).
Can a Mystical Experience Tell Us Anything About God (An article that directly address some of the issues raised in the OP).
**G-String Theory sadly has nothing at all to do with the mystical experience.
MrMrdevincamus
Voice Of The Martyrs Supporter
I am a christian in my personal belief. I began life as a hard core atheist. I came too believe God exist from logic, from science, from the study of history and related subjects. Also archeology supported the bible as time passed and cities emerged from under the sand etc. The archeology finds proved many of the bitter activist atheists wrong as they ridiculed biblical stories. Many recent Christian apologists use arguments based in logic such as cosmological arguments or ontological arguments for the existence of God. A near death experience sealed the deal and convinced me of Gods existence! Of course not all the above happened all at once, some of it dribbled in as a decade passed. And the above is only a small part of all the reasons I believe in an intelligent creator, which I call GID, for God the Intelligent Designer. Lastly intelligent design is different than religious belief, and religions Christian belief with belief in the Hebrew God is different than belief in an intelligent designer. However they are all parts of the same whole.
I know it sounds confusing , but its not too bad....I promise, because for anyone that God finds all the things that goes with it is like learning to game or play cards, Chess etc. Once a few minor rules are learned everything else drops into play in no time...
Yes and no. There's quite a bit packed into the phrase "I experienced God":
1. I experienced something.
2. That something is rooted in something real outside myself (i.e. it wasn't a hallucination or a delusion).
3. The something is indicative of God.
4. The something is not indicative of anything but God.
The experiencer is the best judge of step 1, but given a particular "something", anyone can judge the other steps... and possibly better than the experiencer.
Since we have to take the person's word for it in step 1, we can't ever confirm that someone else's "experience of God" is genuine, but if we find a flaw in steps 2 through 4, we can refute it as false.
What do I think about people who know about their gods (yes, just know - I don't find that word "claim" in there necessary)? I think that I would like to sit down and have a conversation with them!
Experiencing the gods is one of the hearts of my own religious demographic, so I have great interest in discussing such things. Alas, very often I end up seeing things like this - the habitual second guessing and naysaying rhetoric - and these conversations don't occur. That is unfortunate. Theology - the study of the gods - is fascinating.
Experiencing the gods is one of the hearts of my own religious demographic, so I have great interest in discussing such things. Alas, very often I end up seeing things like this - the habitual second guessing and naysaying rhetoric - and these conversations don't occur. That is unfortunate. Theology - the study of the gods - is fascinating.
How did you come by your knowledge of these rules?
Lots of folks offering to speak for God and tell us God's rules.
If I claim that God told me there were no rules, should you listen to me? Why or why not?
Why should I listen to you anymore than you should listen to me? I've had my experiences, all very convincing. Does my conviction in my personal experiences give me authority to tell you the will of God?
If we both speak for God, shouldn't we be saying the same thing?
Or is it ok? God tells me one thing is true and tells you a different thing is true.
Mister Silver
Faith's Nightmare
Amazingly, men throughout history have claimed to express the word of god, and those men were followed to the point where new religions were created. Take Mormonism, for example. There's no way Joseph Smith was in any way receiving the word of god, and yet he was a good enough con man (a historical fact of his past that seemed to be erased through holy intervention) to convince a small following that eventually became a bigger following that turned into a religion.
That is how religion works. It begins small and then expands. Eventually, people sacrifice their minds to it, which is the saddest part, because they stop thinking critically just to satisfy what they think only the religion can provide.
allfoak
Alchemist
The knowledge of God comes from within. Therefore, it can neither be confirmed nor denied.
Mister Silver
Faith's Nightmare
In a very real sense, it can be denied, despite it having derived from within the individual. There is a common misconception that just because it is a "personal" belief that "many" seem to share, which is quite illogical in itself and fails as a proper explanation for belief, that the personal belief is somehow magically untouched by logic. Logic dictates that if someone cannot properly provide the evidence, then that something is not a part of reality. Certainly, that something may be a part of one's mind, a concept of pure imagination, but in no way is it a construct of reality that has rules and evidence to properly classify something as realistic and existing in our world.
I know they occur. We can each have our own God(s) or no God. What I don't get is the assumption that I have because of my personal experiences, any authority to you God's will, or God's rules or that God is like this or that. Or that your God is false and my God, my knowledge of God is the real truth ( Even though I couldn't validate that for crap) other than relying on my personal experience.
Here's the real question, does my personal experience of God give me authority to speak for God? It did for Paul, Muhammad, Jesus, Moses. Any number of other would be spokespeople for God.
My position is no. I have no authority to speak for God. However those who feel they can speak for God, to the rest of us, how do they justify that claim?
Up to you whether you choose to rely on these personal experiences or question them. However if someone is going to claim the authority to tell the rest of us about God.... Why should I accept their claims, based on their personal experience over someone else's or my own. If this is the way it works and they all don't claim the same about God, then some are lying, maybe all are lying who claim to speak for God.
Your God is your God, my God is my God or lack there of. Are we cool on that? You tell me of your Gods or spirits, I'll tell you about mine. They need have nothing in common.
Mister Silver
Faith's Nightmare
Brilliantly stated.
From this I can have any God of my choosing. That's fine as long as you don't have any expectation of being able to tell me anything about God. Because my God within has nothing to do with your God within and vice versa.
Mister Silver
Faith's Nightmare
Well if that argument held any value in logic instead of being a centerpiece for actual ignorance, then people would believe in invisible unicorns and use that argument to claim those who denied the existence of invisible unicorns are being illogical. Not all logical fallacies are relevant, I'm afraid, and certainly not for every situation.
We'll have to agree to disagree about whether or not you were committing the fallacy of arguing from ignorance in post 51, then.
Mister Silver
Faith's Nightmare
We'll certainly have to agree to disagree that you misused a logical fallacy.
Mister Silver
Faith's Nightmare
Here's some aspirin for that headache.