Speaking Personally, Can a Mystical Experience be Conclusive Evidence for the Existence of God?

SalixIncendium said:

While I love to discuss mystical experiences, I, unfortunately, cannot speak intelligently about anyone’s experiences but my own, save accounts I’ve read about others’ mystical experiences.

Click to expand...

To be sure, the OP is not asking you to address anyone else's experiences. I'm confused now. Didn't I make that clear in the OP? I would not be surprised if I muddled that job. I muddle just about every job.

I, personally, have found no logical or methodological conclusive evidence of what is generally accepted as god in my experiences. Just me.

Click to expand...

Lucky for you, then, god is on sale at Walmart right next to mystical experiences in the Theology Aisle.

Sunstone said:

Really? Are you sure you have thought through what "objective evidence" actually is?

Click to expand...

Yes.

Sunstone said:

It's not hard to see that all so called "objective" evidence is actually inter-subjectively verifiable evidence.

Click to expand...

I know and I'm happy with that as a definition of "objective". My point stands.

Vinayaka said:

I don't think anything can provide logical or conclusive evidence of God. Mystic events are outside of logic, that's partly why they're termed mystical.

Click to expand...

You're confusing me now. Are you suggesting that because the content of a mystical experience is beyond logic, you cannot at some point after a mystical experience think logically about the implications of the fact you had a mystical experience? If that is what you are suggesting, I must respectfully disagree with you. It seems to me that if I have a mystical experience, I can afterwards easily enough think logically about what the fact of the experience might or might not imply about the existence of god. For instance, I can ask the question, "Does the experience I had that was triggered by my looking at @SalixIncendium 's pink and green paisley tuxedo in broad daylight logically imply the existence of deity?"

Sunstone said:

To be sure, the OP is not asking you to address anyone else's experiences. I'm confused now. Didn't I make that clear in the OP? I would not be surprised if I muddled that job. I muddle just about every job.

Click to expand...

I just responded to the title. Isn't that how it works at RF?

Seriously, though, perhaps I misunderstood the question in the OP. I thought you were my personal opinion on a general question about any person who has a mystical experience.

ratiocinator said:

Yes.



I know and I'm happy with that as a definition of "objective". My point stands.

Click to expand...

In the first place, you seem to be assuming that god must be a being, and thus must either objectively exist or not objectively exist. Yet as it happens, that is merely an assumption which you have not demonstrated to be true. For instance, check out Tillich's notion that god is beyond the categories of existence and non-existence. If Tillich is right, your assumption is unwarranted.

Again, if you don't like Tillich, then check out Jiddu Krishnamurti's notion that god is not some static thing, but is ever changing. That, if true, would place god beyond the categories of existing and non-existing just as much or even more surely as Tillich's notion does.

Now in the second place, if you want to assert that subjective experience cannot conclusively prove the existence of an objective reality then I agree with you. But precisely the same thing can be said about any and all so called "objective" reality. We do not even know for sure if anything at all objectively exists. But the devil is in the words "for sure". Is that really the standard you wish to impose on whether or not to think your desk, your spouse, your car, the tree in your yard, etc etc etc exist? I mean, are you an actual solipsisist? If you are, then I would refer you to Wittgenstein's five criticisms of solipsism. First, go defeat those, and when you have, get back to me. Then we'll talk.

Sunstone said:

You're confusing me now. Are you suggesting that because the content of a mystical experience is beyond logic, you cannot at some point after a mystical experience think logically about the implications of the fact you had a mystical experience? If that is what you are suggesting, I must respectfully disagree with you. It seems to me that if I have a mystical experience, I can afterwards easily enough think logically about what the fact of the experience might or might not imply about the existence of god. For instance, I can ask the question, "Does the experience I had that was triggered by my looking at @SalixIncendium 's pink and green paisley tuxedo in broad daylight logically imply the existence of deity?"

Click to expand...

Not sure I understand what you're trying to say either.

However .... Yes you can choose to think logically about the fact you had such an experience, but that probably won't explain it. For example, if someone has a strong mystical experience, logically they aren't very impressed with another 'minor' one or hearing of someone else's. That's logical. It's like someone saying, "I've been to Paris" to a person who lives there. Of course it might vary according to the nature of said experience.

SalixIncendium said:

I just responded to the title. Isn't that how it works at RF?

Click to expand...

Of course, you're right about that.

Seriously, though, perhaps I misunderstood the question in the OP. I thought you were my personal opinion on a general question about any person who has a mystical experience.

Click to expand...

I think I might have screwed up the OP. Maybe this will do? If I have a mystical experience that I interpret as an experience of god, then does that mystical experience provide me with good reason to believe god exists?

EDIT: I have edited the OP to reflect your insightful criticism.

Vinayaka said:

Not sure I understand what you're trying to say either.

However .... Yes you can choose to think logically about the fact you had such an experience, but that probably won't explain it. For example, if someone has a strong mystical experience, logically they aren't very impressed with another 'minor' one or hearing of someone else's. That's logical. It's like someone saying, "I've been to Paris" to a person who lives there. Of course it might vary according to the nature of said experience.

Click to expand...

I think this time around you and I have failed to understand each other well enough to have a conversation on this topic. It happens now and then. No worries. Better luck to both of us next time.

Sunstone said:

In the first place, you seem to be assuming that god must be a being, and thus must either objectively exist or not objectively exist. Yet as it happens, that is merely an assumption which you have not demonstrated to be true. For instance, check out Tillich's notion that god is beyond the categories of existence and non-existence. If Tillich is right, your assumption is unwarranted.

Again, if you don't like Tillich, then check out Jiddu Krishnamurti's notion that god is not some static thing, but is ever changing. That, if true, would place god beyond the categories of existing and non-existing just as much or even more surely as Tillich's notion does.

Click to expand...

Your original question refers directly to "conclusive evidence for the existence of god" - which is the question I addressed. If you want to bring in another question about whether a god can be classified as existing or not, perhaps you should have asked a different question.

Sunstone said:

Now in the second place, if you want to assert that subjective experience cannot conclusively prove the existence of an objective reality then I agree with you. But precisely the same thing can be said about any and all so called "objective" reality. We do not even know for sure if anything at all objectively exists. But the devil is in the words "for sure". Is that really the standard you wish to impose on whether or not to think your desk, your spouse, your car, the tree in your yard, etc etc etc exist?

Click to expand...

You can't conclusively prove anything outside of pure logic and mathematics. The standard for evidence for "objective" existence is (as already mentioned) intersubjective verifiability.

Phaedrus said:

Steering a conversation strictly toward where you want it to go does not sit well with me.

Click to expand...

Good to know. On the other hand, I am profoundly irritated by people who agree to abide by the Forum rules when they sign up, but who then play fast and lose with the rule against off topic posts. I have even been known to report such folks to the mods and the mods have even been known to then take a dim view of their breaking their word of honor that they would obey the Forum rules. Just so you know where you now stand with me.

ratiocinator said:

Your original question refers directly to "conclusive evidence for the existence of god" - which is the question I addressed. If you want to bring in another question about whether a god can be classified as existing or not, perhaps you should have asked a different question.

Click to expand...

That is actually a fair point. Thank you for bringing that up.

EDIT: I have edited the OP to reflect your insightful criticism.

Sunstone said:

Speaking strictly from a personal standpoint, can a mystical experience provide a person with logically and methodologically conclusive (or at least compelling) evidence for the existence* of god?

EDIT: For example, If I have a mystical experience that I interpret as an experience of god, then can and/or does that mystical experience provide me with a logically or methodologically conclusive reason to believe god exists? What about a logically or methodologically compelling reason, if not a conclusive reason?

SECOND EDIT: *and/or nature of god. My apologies for the edits. I am trying to refine the question based on some pretty insightful criticisms by @SalixIncendium and @ratiocinator.

......
Going by past experience, I am thrilled to say that I calculate the odds this thread will attract at least one intelligent, well-thought out post to be no less than one chance in eight! I know! I know! It's incredible how many thoughtful people there are in the world who are willing to genuinely think something through before responding, rather than dash off the first thing that comes into their minds. And what a joy they are!

By the way, if you choose to answer the question in the affirmative, then how do you account for the significant number of people who are non-theists, yet have mystical experiences, and afterwards remain non-theists? Beyond that, what are your grounds for asserting that a mystical experience can be personally conclusive evidence for the existence of god?​

On the other hand, if you choose to answer the question in the negative, then what are your reasons for answering it in the negative? Surely you are not going to propose that all mystical experiences are hallucinations, or at least, might be hallucinations, are you? I mean, that would be a really strange thing to say even by current American presidential standards, given that mystical experiences differ in 4-6 ways from hallucinations, according to those psychologists who study these things. So if you are not going to cop out with "they could be hallucinations" then on what grounds do you assert that mystical experiences cannot be conclusive evidence for god?​

PLEASE NOTE WELL: The question is not about whether one person's mystical experience provides grounds for another person to belief in the existence of god. It is about whether one person's mystical experience provides grounds for that person to believe in god.


______________
What is a "mystical experience" in this context? That's a good question! See this Wiki article to get you started on discovering the exciting and astonishing answer to that question. Remember: Buckle up before clicking through to the Wiki article because the thrills start immediately and are non-stop!

_____________
My own position on this issue is not wholly solidified yet, despite on and off mulling the issue over for the past 40 years (I try not to arrive at hasty and premature conclusions). In general, though, I lean towards they are most likely strong evidence for the existence of some kind of weirdness in the universe that we humans cannot conclusively say is "god". Of course, that's personal evidence and is of little or no relevance to anyone but the person who has had the experience.

Click to expand...

Again. Let me say that the resolution of the issue pivots upon what is God to one. David Bentley Hart has described God as below:


I believe in the same God as Mr. Hart is speaking of. In my opinion, one or more non dual mystical experience/s will lead one to be convinced of the above, by way of direct subjective experience. Does one who knows ever deny that orgasm is mind blowing? But can it be explained to one who has no experience?

...

Sunstone said:

EDIT: A MUCH better way of stating the question asked in this thread can be found in this other thread. In fact, I think this thread is likely to be quite confusing. If you are interested in this question, it is probably best to discuss it in the other thread. Besides, I hear they are serving tea and cookies in the other thread. At least that's what I hear. They sure are not serving tea and cookies in this thread!


Speaking strictly from a personal standpoint, can a mystical experience provide a person with logically and methodologically conclusive (or at least compelling) evidence for the existence* of god?

EDIT: For example, If I have a mystical experience that I interpret as an experience of god, then can and/or does that mystical experience provide me with a logically or methodologically conclusive reason to believe god exists? What about a logically or methodologically compelling reason, if not a conclusive reason?

SECOND EDIT: *and/or nature of god. My apologies for the edits. I am trying to refine the question based on some pretty insightful criticisms by @SalixIncendium and @ratiocinator.

......
Going by past experience, I am thrilled to say that I calculate the odds this thread will attract at least one intelligent, well-thought out post to be no less than one chance in eight! I know! I know! It's incredible how many thoughtful people there are in the world who are willing to genuinely think something through before responding, rather than dash off the first thing that comes into their minds. And what a joy they are!

By the way, if you choose to answer the question in the affirmative, then how do you account for the significant number of people who are non-theists, yet have mystical experiences, and afterwards remain non-theists? Beyond that, what are your grounds for asserting that a mystical experience can be personally conclusive evidence for the existence of god?​

On the other hand, if you choose to answer the question in the negative, then what are your reasons for answering it in the negative? Surely you are not going to propose that all mystical experiences are hallucinations, or at least, might be hallucinations, are you? I mean, that would be a really strange thing to say even by current American presidential standards, given that mystical experiences differ in 4-6 ways from hallucinations, according to those psychologists who study these things. So if you are not going to cop out with "they could be hallucinations" then on what grounds do you assert that mystical experiences cannot be conclusive evidence for god?​

PLEASE NOTE WELL: The question is not about whether one person's mystical experience provides grounds for another person to belief in the existence of god. It is about whether one person's mystical experience provides grounds for that person to believe in god.


______________
What is a "mystical experience" in this context? That's a good question! See this Wiki article to get you started on discovering the exciting and astonishing answer to that question. Remember: Buckle up before clicking through to the Wiki article because the thrills start immediately and are non-stop!

_____________
My own position on this issue is not wholly solidified yet, despite on and off mulling the issue over for the past 40 years (I try not to arrive at hasty and premature conclusions). In general, though, I lean towards they are most likely strong evidence for the existence of some kind of weirdness in the universe that we humans cannot conclusively say is "god". Of course, that's personal evidence and is of little or no relevance to anyone but the person who has had the experience.

Click to expand...

Hi @Sunstone;

We’ve all observed the endless philosophical, “cosmological”; “traditional”, “logical” and “scientific” data discussed between theists and agnostics and, though they are the most popular data types to use (since logician-philosopher-scientists seem to want to “try” to “analyze” and "debate"…). Still I do not think that religion is supposed to be proveable by such means and more importantly I do not believe these are the most powerful types of personal evidence for Christians to build and sustain a belief in God's existence.

I believe the strongest and most powerful, most compelling and profound evidence upon which one may base increasing faith in God's existence is direct communication with God; personal revelation from God to an individual.

For example; True Christianity, has the promise of the Holy Ghost, given to individuals who enter into the proper spiritual process of change which results in obtaining the gift of the Holy Ghost. It is individualized. It is trustworthy. Those who have revelation seem to possess the strongest testimony of the existence of God.

However, this “gift” seems to be as impervious to objective observation by those who do not possess it as any other “second hand” data. It brings objective experiences to those who have it, but then, how does that person do more than “describe” to another person; regarding their personal revelations, or personal communications from God? To the outsider, (who is inexperienced in such things himself), those things may seem like ouigi boards or crystal balls at the county fair. It is difficult for me, (as a religionist) to condemn the agnostic for his skepticism that any such communication from God is taking place, and for his unwillingness to experiment with faith himself (though I wish he would).

The difficulty on a basic level is that miracles and personal communication from God only happen once certain keys are turned. With rare exception, some degree of faith precedes the most powerful data (the miracles; the personal objective evidence, etc.), rather than faith following the personal experiences and the data.

Revelation often carries within it, the objective evidence that it is not a phenomenon generated by our own psyche. There are objective elements to revelation imbedded within it, as evidence that one is not crazy, and that they are not simply hallucinating, or manufacturing the data by their own bias confirmation. For example, information provided in a dream as to what will happen in a future event, or giving the same message at the same time to different individuals who are separated by vast geographical space, etc. The information provided which the person receiving the data could not possibly have known is, itself, personal evidence that the revelatory experience did not originate in the individuals mind. Though this experience (such as a dream) cannot be shared with another person in any first hand fashion, a diary entry, predicting the future event can serve as evidence the person knew the event was to happen in advance.

Barring the fakers or the mentally unstable; The person who in actuality receives the witness of Gods existence by direct revelation from God, simply declares this knowledge "as one having authority" to do so for themselves, from revelation, and "not as the scribes" who are left to quote scripture or to quote science or to quote logic or to quote tradition (etc) as their authority for declaring the existence of God. I believe the orientation and quality of data gained by personal revelation versus all other types of "witness" is different, and superior personal evidence of the existence of a source of information outside ones self.


Clear
τωφυειω

Sunstone said:

Speaking strictly from a personal standpoint, can a mystical experience provide a person with logically and methodologically conclusive (or at least compelling) evidence for the existence* of god?

EDIT: For example, If I have a mystical experience that I interpret as an experience of god, then can and/or does that mystical experience provide me with a logically or methodologically conclusive reason to believe god exists? What about a logically or methodologically compelling reason, if not a conclusive reason?

SECOND EDIT: *and/or nature of god. My apologies for the edits. I am trying to refine the question based on some pretty insightful criticisms by @SalixIncendium and @ratiocinator.

......
Going by past experience, I am thrilled to say that I calculate the odds this thread will attract at least one intelligent, well-thought out post to be no less than one chance in eight! I know! I know! It's incredible how many thoughtful people there are in the world who are willing to genuinely think something through before responding, rather than dash off the first thing that comes into their minds. And what a joy they are!

By the way, if you choose to answer the question in the affirmative, then how do you account for the significant number of people who are non-theists, yet have mystical experiences, and afterwards remain non-theists? Beyond that, what are your grounds for asserting that a mystical experience can be personally conclusive evidence for the existence of god?​

On the other hand, if you choose to answer the question in the negative, then what are your reasons for answering it in the negative? Surely you are not going to propose that all mystical experiences are hallucinations, or at least, might be hallucinations, are you? I mean, that would be a really strange thing to say even by current American presidential standards, given that mystical experiences differ in 4-6 ways from hallucinations, according to those psychologists who study these things. So if you are not going to cop out with "they could be hallucinations" then on what grounds do you assert that mystical experiences cannot be conclusive evidence for god?​

PLEASE NOTE WELL: The question is not about whether one person's mystical experience provides grounds for another person to belief in the existence of god. It is about whether one person's mystical experience provides grounds for that person to believe in god.


______________
What is a "mystical experience" in this context? That's a good question! See this Wiki article to get you started on discovering the exciting and astonishing answer to that question. Remember: Buckle up before clicking through to the Wiki article because the thrills start immediately and are non-stop!

_____________
My own position on this issue is not wholly solidified yet, despite on and off mulling the issue over for the past 40 years (I try not to arrive at hasty and premature conclusions). In general, though, I lean towards they are most likely strong evidence for the existence of some kind of weirdness in the universe that we humans cannot conclusively say is "god". Of course, that's personal evidence and is of little or no relevance to anyone but the person who has had the experience.

Click to expand...

Yes, putting everything together, one sees Intelligent Order with will and Purpose. I don't necessary fully understand What It Is but I agree to call It God, Father.