Are people who claim to know God liars?

[Nakosis]

I'd say there are limits to this. Honest belief and following religion will provide experiences to back up any religion to a point. It's then a balancing act to see if reality matches the experiences and teachings. If it doesn't, people leave or become strict and angry.

Beyond those kind of experiences, there are the experiences of the mystic. It's fair to say though, that then the idea of God becomes less meaningful and on that point comparisons to the straight-up atheists can sometimes be unavoidable while at the same time finding meaning in the deeper writings within religions.

What's difficult is that I have seen how constant exposure to an idea like a specific religious belief can influence the "reality" of what the subconscious mind provides to your conscious awareness as experience.

If I constantly exposed myself to some idea about reality or God, as a wild example, lets say I wanted to believe God was a dragon. I could immerse myself in dragon lore, dragon images, songs about dragons, and my subconscious mind would pick up on this, create a spiritual experience which feels convincingly real which I had no conscious involvement in creating.

The subconscious mind is capable of creating these spiritual/mystical experiences without your conscious control or knowledge.

So you have this experience, it seems very real to you. It happens entirely independent of your conscious thought or awareness. Why shouldn't you believe some outside force or deity is sending you a message? Really you have no way of knowing they are not.

My subconscious mind will create a dragon, one I've never thought of or imagined consciously before. Provide a profound revelation that suddenly makes all the sense in the world to me. Will speak to me, guide me independent of any conscious thought. Know more about the world than I'm consciously aware of.

It seems to me the reality is that we are finding ways to tap into our own subconscious mind not some cosmic deity sending requests to be worshiped.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Only if you assume they have to "justify" telling the rest of us about what happened to them. And I see no reason why they should have to do that.

I didn't say anything about "the rest of us." Hopefully, we try to justify our viewpoints at least to ourselves. There's nothing that says we have to do this, but a conclusion that hasn't been justified is, by definition, unjustified.

They can "justifiably" say whatever they want.

No, they really can't. See above.

Just as you can "justifiably" believe it or not believe it. I don't get this need for "justification". Who do you imagine anyone else has to justify their experience of reality, to? Is there a reality judge, somewhere, who's job it is to determine what's real and what's not? And what makes them an expert?

I think you misinterpreted what I said. I'm not necessarily talking about external validation; I'm talking about the processes we use to decide whether something is true or likely to be true.

It's only an "illness" if it's causing the person some significant dysfunction. And even then, altering someone's chemistry so that they no longer experience "God" doesn't mean their experiences were not real god-experiences. It's entirely possible that the chemistry was simply an enabler. And there's no way any psychiatrist on Earth would know otherwise.

Again: I think you've misunderstood me. The role of the psychiatrist here isn't to say "you did not experience God;" it's to say, potentially, "your mental condition can create hallucinations like what you're describing as 'God,' so you haven't ruled out the alternate explanations as you would need to do to conclude that you necessarily experienced God."

And, depending on the state of mind of the experiencer, they might not be a good self-judge of whether their perceptions conform with reality.

Remember: "I experienced God" is a much higher bar to clear than "I experienced something consistent with God." The difference between these statements is that "I experienced God" implies that the person has concluded to a reasonable certainty that:

- the experience was real and not imagined.
- nothing but God explains the experience.

These are very difficult conclusions for someone to rationally justify, even to onesself.

It may be the case that someone other than the experiencer is a better judge of the experiencer's state of mind. It may be that someone other than the experiencer is aware of alternate explanations that the experiencer never considered.

 

[Nakosis]

We have heard that theology is the science of God when maybe it's actually that science is the theology of truth.

I don't know whether Paganism/Neopaganism is accurate now.

Bottom line: Science reveals God.

Actually, I'll say other.

Well as long as you're accepting that science has authority over your religious belief, I guess I can't argue over that.

Kind of make religious belief irrelevant though. If your beliefs must conform to what science proves then what need is there to clothe it in religious ideology?

 

[Nakosis]

The blind cannot see.
Those who cannot see even from creation, from the glory of the heavens and from the glory of the earth, the ecosystems, the individual animals - some of the obvious things revealed about God - are blind.

Those who think that a God who creates man with an unquenchable thirst for God in the fact that there never has been a nation, a tribe - on earth without some form of worship, and yet denies this need as originating with the creator - are blind. That atheism stands there lonely and screams there is no god while there is undeniable evidence for the universe not being materialistic - just goes to show that some are blind.

I will not deny some are blind; this cannot be fixed. So, let the blind lead the blind into oblivion.

Yes there's apparently some genetic reality to this. Some folks are more genetically predisposed to having religious experiences than others.

Some people will have absolutely no idea what a religious experience is never having had one themselves. Likely to believe every claim of a religious experience is a fabrication. A wilful lie.

Too bad for them right? They got the short straw in the genetics department.

 

[Nakosis]

- the experience was real and not imagined.
- nothing but God explains the experience.

These are very difficult conclusions for someone to rationally justify, even to onesself.

It may be the case that someone other than the experiencer is a better judge of the experiencer's state of mind. It may be that someone other than the experiencer is aware of alternate explanations that the experiencer never considered.

Maybe I'm wrong but I feel imagined tends to be a loaded word.

Imagined I think implies some conscious control over what was "imagined". In religious experiences, there is no conscious control. Your subconscious mind is capable of effecting a completely autonomous entity during a religious experience.

I'm not saying it's not accurate. Just when you say it I feel it implies conscious control over the event when there actually was none.

I'm sure you didn't intend it that way, however you tell me I imagined my conversations with God, I'd probably claim I did nothing of the sort. It happened without me having to imagine anything.

When "I" imagine something I am conscious of the process. When a spiritual experience occurs, there is no conscious awareness of the process.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Maybe I'm wrong but I feel imagined tends to be a loaded word.

It's no less loaded than "real", IMO.

Imagined I think implies some conscious control over what was "imagined".

If it helps: I wasn't trying to imply that.

 

[PureX]

I didn't say anything about "the rest of us." Hopefully, we try to justify our viewpoints at least to ourselves. There's nothing that says we have to do this, but a conclusion that hasn't been justified is, by definition, unjustified.

A direct personal experience of "God" isn't a "viewpoint". And it's not an opinion. And it's not a theory. It's the reality of the person that experienced it. How you conceptualize it when you hear of it your own business. How they perceived it when they experienced it is theirs. I don't think they owe anyone and justifications or proofs. And I don't think you have any right asking them, for them.

I think you misinterpreted what I said. I'm not necessarily talking about external validation; I'm talking about the processes we use to decide whether something is true or likely to be true.

No, you're talking about the processes you think you would use if it had happened to you. But, of course, you can't even know that, because you can't really know how you would have reacted to such an experience.

Again: I think you've misunderstood me. The role of the psychiatrist here isn't to say "you did not experience God;" it's to say, potentially, "your mental condition can create hallucinations like what you're describing as 'God,' so you haven't ruled out the alternate explanations as you would need to do to conclude that you necessarily experienced God."

Then the psychiatrist hasn't told anyone anything that they didn't already know. And by the way, most of these experiences do not involve hallucinations.

And, depending on the state of mind of the experiencer, they might not be a good self-judge of whether their perceptions conform with reality.

You don't seem to understand that none of this matters. If I take acid and "see God", that doesn't mean that what I'm seeing isn't real, or that it isn't God. It just means that the acid helped open and set my mind for the experience. And the same goes for a tumor, or a mental illness, or religious euphoria, or whatever.

Remember: "I experienced God" is a much higher bar to clear than "I experienced something consistent with God."

Only to those who want them not to be the same thing. Most people don't make that differentiation, and don't want to.

The difference between these statements is that "I experienced God" implies that the person has concluded to a reasonable certainty that:

- the experience was real and not imagined.

What's the difference? Imagination is a part of reality. In fact, what we call "real" is an imagined reality developed in our minds, not reality, in and of itself. It's all real to the person that experiences it as real.

- nothing but God explains the experience.

They are free to draw and assert whatever conclusion they want, since it was their experience, and not yours.

These are very difficult conclusions for someone to rationally justify, even to onesself.

Well, apparently they aren't. Because lots of people who have had these experiences managed to determine for themselves that they were an experience of "God".

It may be the case that someone other than the experiencer is a better judge of the experiencer's state of mind. It may be that someone other than the experiencer is aware of alternate explanations that the experiencer never considered.

No, that's pretty much never the case. The logical and practical truth is that NONE OF US are better than any other of us to make this determination for someone else. And unless we have such an experience, ourselves, I see little point in trying to. We have to just take it at face value, and let the mystery be.

 

[Kenny]

I'm afraid my propensity for debate at this point is low on energy.

I FULLY understand!

 

[Nakosis]

- the experience was real and not imagined.

Since you're asking about what's real and what's imagined....

Is pain real or imagined?
I've learned how to block pain, really distract my attention away for it. If I can choose whether to feel the pain or not, is the pain real? Or is it imagined?

The pain is all in my head, however since it is a common experience, most folks accept there is a real cause for it.

Pain would fit I think with what is implied by imagine. The pain you feel is just imagine. An experience created by your subconscious mind to let you know something real is happening.

Imagined - subconsciously the brain creates a mental image, a sensation, a feeling for you to consciously experience. No indication what the cause of the experience was at this point.

The sensation, of a spiritual experience has the same "reality" as the experience of pain. Feeling the presence of God, feeling the love, the warmth, seeing God, hearing God speak in some cases. Whether an actual physical source can be found, like finding an open cut for the source of pain, or not, there's no way for the experiencer to consciously tell the difference.

In the case of a open wound, I just happen to be able to show you physical evidence as a source for the pain I'm experiencing.

Just trying to point out that you're not going to be able to convince someone who's had a spiritual experience, that it wasn't a "real" experience.

What I question is the source of that experience. When the source of that experience can't be physically validate, God comes forth as a ready answer.

My position as an atheist is that God is an unacceptable answer for anything because God can't be physically validated.

I could always change that stance. Attribute everything I "spiritually" experience to God and be counted again as one among the faithful.

The only thing that really changes for me is that I start accepting God as an answer again for what can't otherwise be explained.

 

[Nakosis]

Then we have 6 billion people who are mentally ill and you are one of the few who are sane.

However, to say that it is based merely on faith hardly encompasses the experience. I can assume that since you haven't experience it, you are judging someone else's experience by yours... not a good measurement.

Unless, that is, you are all knowing... which I doubt

We have 6 billion folks who accept God as an answer for what can't be otherwise explained, and a great deal less who refuse to accept God as a legitimate answer, for anything.

Not because they hate God or don't want God to exist but because it's an answer that can't be objectively validated.

 

[Kenny]

We have 6 billion folks who accept God as an answer for what can't be otherwise explained, and a great deal less who refuse to accept God as a legitimate answer, for anything.

Not because they hate God or don't want God to exist but because it's an answer that can't be objectively validated.

There is some truth of what you are saying

"Objective", many times, is translated as "There has to be a scientific reason" rather than "I see God working here.

As our youth were serving a HUGE pot of hot fortified meal being served to a HUGE line of starving people because of Hurricane Mitch in Honduras, the director saw that the line was bigger than the pot.

As he went off and cried and prayed because there wasn't enough, our youth saw the meal continue on and on and on until the last person was served.

So, YES, the people had no answer for the multiplying of the food and said it was God because it can't be otherwise explained. And, YES, a great deal less amount of people will accept God as the legitimate answer.

 

[RedDragon94]

Kind of make religious belief irrelevant though.

It informs it.

If your beliefs must conform to what science proves then what need is there to clothe it in religious ideology?

Because science hasn't discovered everything.

 

[RedDragon94]

but to say we have no knowledge, IMO, wouldn't be correct.

I didn't say that. Where did I say that?

To say that Theology goes against science would be partially correct. If God is God, then he could violate science. There would be a balance somewhere.

To say that God is not a perfect being in that we don't live in a perfect world, IMV, could be a wrong premise if we don't understand why He created the world in the first place and how the spiritual laws work.

How come God can't violate the spiritual laws in a way that benefits everyone?

 

[Jumi]

What's difficult is that I have seen how constant exposure to an idea like a specific religious belief can influence the "reality" of what the subconscious mind provides to your conscious awareness as experience.

If I constantly exposed myself to some idea about reality or God, as a wild example, lets say I wanted to believe God was a dragon. I could immerse myself in dragon lore, dragon images, songs about dragons, and my subconscious mind would pick up on this, create a spiritual experience which feels convincingly real which I had no conscious involvement in creating.

The subconscious mind is capable of creating these spiritual/mystical experiences without your conscious control or knowledge.

What you say is true, but I wouldn't call these mystical experiences. Mystical experiences are more likely to "break" your view of god or reality than follow them.

My subconscious mind will create a dragon, one I've never thought of or imagined consciously before. Provide a profound revelation that suddenly makes all the sense in the world to me. Will speak to me, guide me independent of any conscious thought. Know more about the world than I'm consciously aware of.

Indeed, such a being would seem fake and if tested would be proven such.

It seems to me the reality is that we are finding ways to tap into our own subconscious mind not some cosmic deity sending requests to be worshiped.

Why would anything powerful enough to be called deity request worship from lesser beings anyway? It makes as much sense to me as a human wanting a single celled organism to worship him.

 

[Willamena]

That's fine. My grip is really about those folks feeling they possess some authority to make claims about God to other people

Atheists too? The people who make the claim "nah, nah, there is no God," are making a claim of authority.

You can't say, "No, that's not God," without some idea of what "God" is.

 

[Profound Realization]

As an engineer, I am required to be able to validate my claims to anyone at anytime. I can do that. I'm good documenting results of tests which prove my claims.

I guess I'm also good at "religious" experiences. I've found that it's not really the best idea to go about life relying on these personal religious... um maybe better defined as spiritual experiences.

You can, I know a lot of folks who swear by then. Their entire life reinforces their acceptance of them. They see signs from God they direct them through life and follow them without question.

I could do the same. It's my experience, I was there, I should rely on it right?

I also know the fallibility of being human. Why I need to document everything, be able to provide proof for my claims. Even as an engineer I make mistakes. I constantly have to question my memory, my knowledge. I've other folks relying on me for their safety.

Now what if I relied on some vision or my belief in being guided by God to ensure what I designed or created was going to be safe.

How safe would you feel?

It depends on what the nature of "God" is which no one can "directly" know.

I'd have to ask from whence did your knowledge, memory, fallibility/infallibility, knowledge of what is good/bad, vision, desire for other folks to be dependent of you in some way, belief, spiritual experiences, the desire to engineer/create/design, life (some of the many essences/nature of your being) come from?

Is that documented and evident? What tests have you performed within yourself?

 

[Kenny]

I didn't say that. Where did I say that?

here

I'm going to vote that we do have knowledge of God.

How come God can't violate the spiritual laws in a way that benefits everyone?

Because then He would be a liar.

If He says "Man shall not live by bread alone but by every word that proceeds from my mouth" and then has someone no living by every word... then He lied.

But what He does benefits everyone anyway, so no need to violate it.

 

[PureX]

We have 6 billion folks who accept God as an answer for what can't be otherwise explained, and a great deal less who refuse to accept God as a legitimate answer, for anything.

Not because they hate God or don't want God to exist but because it's an answer that can't be objectively validated.

"Objective validation" is, itself, an imaginary phenomena that isn't otherwise "real". Logically, no human can "objectively perceive" or "objectively validate" anything. Because the moment we perceive it, we are doing so subjectively. And the moment we presume to "validate" it, we are doing so based on our own subjective criteria.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

A direct personal experience of "God" isn't a "viewpoint". And it's not an opinion.

Of course it is.

And it's not a theory. It's the reality of the person that experienced it.

It's their presumed reality. Whether that presumption is correct or reasonable remains to be seen.

How you conceptualize it when you hear of it your own business. How they perceived it when they experienced it is theirs. I don't think they owe anyone and justifications or proofs. And I don't think you have any right asking them, for them.

I have every right to ask whatever questions I want to whoever I please. They have every right to refuse to answer, and I'm free to take their refusal into account however I like in my judgement of their position and of them.

No, you're talking about the processes you think you would use if it had happened to you. But, of course, you can't even know that, because you can't really know how you would have reacted to such an experience.

Any reasonable person who is responsible to themselves grapples with the question "how can I know that what I think is true is actually true?" There are a range of ways to come at it, but not all of them are logically valid.

There's nothing stopping someone from rejecting the use of reason, but when this happens, it's fair to call them unreasonable.

Then the psychiatrist hasn't told anyone anything that they didn't already know. And by the way, most of these experiences do not involve hallucinations.

I was giving an example that was meant to illustrate one particular case.

You don't seem to understand that none of this matters. If I take acid and "see God", that doesn't mean that what I'm seeing isn't real, or that it isn't God. It just means that the acid helped open and set my mind for the experience. And the same goes for a tumor, or a mental illness, or religious euphoria, or whatever.

Yes, that's one possibility. It's also possible that God coincidentally decided to visit the person while they were tripping and the two things have nothing to do with each other. Another possibility is that the person is mistaking the effects of the drug or the tumour for God.

... and until you have good reason to eliminate that last explanation - along with all other possible explanations that don't involve a god - you aren't justified in concluding that you must have experienced God.

Only to those who want them not to be the same thing. Most people don't make that differentiation, and don't want to.
What's the difference?

Since at least some of the cases we're describing are consistent with mental illness, I would expect that the difference between "this is consistent with X" and "this was definitely X" would matter to the people who have these experiences.

Imagination is a part of reality. In fact, what we call "real" is an imagined reality developed in our minds, not reality, in and of itself. It's all real to the person that experiences it as real.

I'll let you be the one to tell that to someone who gets upset at the suggestion that they imagined their "God experience."

They are free to draw and assert whatever conclusion they want, since it was their experience, and not yours.

As I've explained several times now: we have to take their word for it on the specific of their experience, but any rational person is capable of making logical inferences from those specifics, or identifying mistakes of logic by the experiencer.

Well, apparently they aren't. Because lots of people who have had these experiences managed to determine for themselves that they were an experience of "God".

I said rationally justify. Just because people reached a conclusion doesn't mean they did it rationally.

No, that's pretty much never the case.

The psychiatric profession disagrees with you.

The logical and practical truth is that NONE OF US are better than any other of us to make this determination for someone else. And unless we have such an experience, ourselves, I see little point in trying to. We have to just take it at face value, and let the mystery be.

That's a cop-out. If people were saying "I experienced a mystery," there would be no debate: sure... you experienced something you can't explain. They're throwing out the idea of it being a mystery when they say "I experienced God." At that point, if they appeal to "mystery" as part of the justification for their conclusion, they're basically admitting that their conclusion of God was an unjustified leap of logic.

 

[PureX]

It's their presumed reality. Whether that presumption is correct or reasonable remains to be seen.

By whom?

You're writing but you're not thinking beyond yourself. And yet you presume that everyone else should be. I'm growing weary of this.