• 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!

Empirical Evidence for God

Ostronomos

Well-Known Member
There exists empirical evidence for God but it is spiritual in nature. God is inaccessible by nature. An analogy would be that of entering another dimension in order to reach Him. As I have stated before, I have seen God once and experienced and witnessed His presence a number of times. Each and every time was during an altered state of consciousness. Now, there is the proposition of panpsychism as a possibility. But in this experience God would be observed as a universal consciousness as opposed to being understood to be specifically a Being that goes by the name God. A general manifestation of universal awareness in other words. But specifically speaking, evidence would appear as an identity that distributes itself over reality at large. Or it may appear to be within. Either way, it would be obvious to the observer that God is real.
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
There exists empirical evidence for God but it is spiritual in nature. God is inaccessible by nature. An analogy would be that of entering another dimension in order to reach Him. As I have stated before, I have seen God once and experienced and witnessed His presence a number of times. Each and every time was during an altered state of consciousness. Now, there is the proposition of panpsychism as a possibility. But in this experience God would be observed as a universal consciousness as opposed to being understood to be specifically a Being that goes by the name God. A general manifestation of universal awareness in other words. But specifically speaking, evidence would appear as an identity that distributes itself over reality at large. Or it may appear to be within. Either way, it would be obvious to the observer that God is real.
But if you are experiencing an altered state of consciousness, how can you verify that what you're experiencing is actually real, as a-posed to a delusion?
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
There exists empirical evidence for God but it is spiritual in nature. God is inaccessible by nature. An analogy would be that of entering another dimension in order to reach Him. As I have stated before, I have seen God once and experienced and witnessed His presence a number of times. Each and every time was during an altered state of consciousness. Now, there is the proposition of panpsychism as a possibility. But in this experience God would be observed as a universal consciousness as opposed to being understood to be specifically a Being that goes by the name God. A general manifestation of universal awareness in other words. But specifically speaking, evidence would appear as an identity that distributes itself over reality at large. Or it may appear to be within. Either way, it would be obvious to the observer that God is real.
You do not appear to understand the nature of empirical evidence.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
There exists empirical evidence for God but it is spiritual in nature. God is inaccessible by nature. An analogy would be that of entering another dimension in order to reach Him. As I have stated before, I have seen God once and experienced and witnessed His presence a number of times. Each and every time was during an altered state of consciousness. Now, there is the proposition of panpsychism as a possibility. But in this experience God would be observed as a universal consciousness as opposed to being understood to be specifically a Being that goes by the name God. A general manifestation of universal awareness in other words. But specifically speaking, evidence would appear as an identity that distributes itself over reality at large. Or it may appear to be within. Either way, it would be obvious to the observer that God is real.
Why would you assume that your perceptions in an "altered state of consciousness" are reliable?
 

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
There exists empirical evidence for God but it is spiritual in nature. God is inaccessible by nature. An analogy would be that of entering another dimension in order to reach Him. As I have stated before, I have seen God once and experienced and witnessed His presence a number of times. Each and every time was during an altered state of consciousness. Now, there is the proposition of panpsychism as a possibility. But in this experience God would be observed as a universal consciousness as opposed to being understood to be specifically a Being that goes by the name God. A general manifestation of universal awareness in other words. But specifically speaking, evidence would appear as an identity that distributes itself over reality at large. Or it may appear to be within. Either way, it would be obvious to the observer that God is real.
That is very very far from empirical... which means objectively quantifiable and publicly observable and analyzable.
 

Ostronomos

Well-Known Member
But if you are experiencing an altered state of consciousness, how can you verify that what you're experiencing is actually real, as a-posed to a delusion?

Usually, any evidence worthy of the name would appear externally distinct from the observer and thus meet the criteria for observational evidence. But not only that, the very atmosphere and environment as well as subjective experience would be distinct.
 

WalterTrull

Godfella
There exists empirical evidence for God but it is spiritual in nature. God is inaccessible by nature. An analogy would be that of entering another dimension in order to reach Him. As I have stated before, I have seen God once and experienced and witnessed His presence a number of times. Each and every time was during an altered state of consciousness. Now, there is the proposition of panpsychism as a possibility. But in this experience God would be observed as a universal consciousness as opposed to being understood to be specifically a Being that goes by the name God. A general manifestation of universal awareness in other words. But specifically speaking, evidence would appear as an identity that distributes itself over reality at large. Or it may appear to be within. Either way, it would be obvious to the observer that God is real.
I get the gist, but the verbiage does seem altered.
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
There exists empirical evidence for God but it is spiritual in nature. God is inaccessible by nature. An analogy would be that of entering another dimension in order to reach Him. As I have stated before, I have seen God once and experienced and witnessed His presence a number of times. Each and every time was during an altered state of consciousness. Now, there is the proposition of panpsychism as a possibility. But in this experience God would be observed as a universal consciousness as opposed to being understood to be specifically a Being that goes by the name God. A general manifestation of universal awareness in other words. But specifically speaking, evidence would appear as an identity that distributes itself over reality at large. Or it may appear to be within. Either way, it would be obvious to the observer that God is real.
(Just a quick note: usually when someone posts a psychedelic word salad like this s/he changes the font and color.)
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
I understand your complaint. On the other hand, why would we assume that our perceptions in any state of consciousness are reliable, and reliable for what?
There's always the "brain in a vat" problem, but that's common to all options here. When we talk about altered states, though, we're talking about brain malfunctions, whether caused by drugs, extreme physical conditions, concentrated effort, or other means.

I'm not sure why we would consider a malfunctioning brain reliable on par with a normally functioning one.
 

Ostronomos

Well-Known Member
There's always the "brain in a vat" problem, but that's common to all options here. When we talk about altered states, though, we're talking about brain malfunctions, whether caused by drugs, extreme physical conditions, concentrated effort, or other means.

I'm not sure why we would consider a malfunctioning brain reliable on par with a normally functioning one.

That is not correct. An altered state of consciousness is simply a conscious experience that is understood to be beyond or outside the realm of ordinary consciousness. That is what I mean by that.
 

Truthseeker

Non-debating member when I can help myself
It's My Birthday!
There exists empirical evidence for God but it is spiritual in nature. God is inaccessible by nature. An analogy would be that of entering another dimension in order to reach Him. As I have stated before, I have seen God once and experienced and witnessed His presence a number of times. Each and every time was during an altered state of consciousness. Now, there is the proposition of panpsychism as a possibility. But in this experience God would be observed as a universal consciousness as opposed to being understood to be specifically a Being that goes by the name God. A general manifestation of universal awareness in other words. But specifically speaking, evidence would appear as an identity that distributes itself over reality at large. Or it may appear to be within. Either way, it would be obvious to the observer that God is real.
I don't believe that anyone can ever see God. That is an illusion on your part, in my opinion. What you saw was probably a symbol for God. I don't believe anyone communes with God directly, but communes with the Holy Spirit that emanates from God. God is too vast and great for anyone to have direct contact with Him.
 

Truthseeker

Non-debating member when I can help myself
It's My Birthday!
There is empirical evidence in that the universe exists, and it is suitable for life. The chances of all the constants being just right is very small. Atheists get around that by saying there are probably many universes, but I see many universes as an evidence for God.
 
Top