Atheists: does God exist?

[idea]

According to the Allegory of the Cave, this isn't true. The masses are trapped in the cave, but the enlightened few - usually including whoever is using the allegory - are free of the cave and can see reality as it truly is.



The Allegory of the Cave encourages people who think they are "free of the cave" to adopt the first mindset.

Yea, I can see that, we'll have to write a new allegory, some in chains, some in chains but perhaps at least able to turn the heads, some lost in a labyrinth of different caves, to those above ground (seeing very small piece of surface),

What is a good parable backdrop for explaining how to be comfortable living with ambiguity?

 

[idea]

..And yes, THAT, unlike biblical myth, is allegory. ...

So much angst could be avoided by taking a non-literal approach to the flood, creation accounts, heaven, hell, etc.

Aesop's fables are fables, but contain truth, adaptable to each reader's interpretation for what they personally need.

Allegories are healthy
Literaliists - the young earthers, anti-evolution, anti-lgbtq, doomsday peppers waiting for 2nd coming instead of taking personal responsibility - prayers over real action.

How to help someone escape literal dualism mindsets?

I have family members in two different literalist religious groups, Mormons, and a JW offshoot group. Love them, but can't communicate.


They see it in others, but never in themselves, beam and mote parable is a good one.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

So much angst could be avoided by taking a non-literal approach to the flood, creation accounts, heaven, hell, etc.

I don't understand why you posted that to me. Do you think I have angst? Do you think I precipitate it others? Do you think they have angst because they're literalists?

Aesop's fables are fables, but contain truth

Yes, I know. Why did you want to tell me that? I was explaining why it is inappropriate to call myths allegories. They're different literary forms that contain different elements for different purposes.

How to help someone escape literal dualism mindsets?

Once again I ask, what are you posting that to me? It seems unrelated to my post. Did you think that that was my purpose? I don't try to change the minds of zealously religious people about their faith-based beliefs for severa reasons. First, it's impossible. Second, it would be cruel if they are in the last third of life; such people aren't as adaptable as younger thinkers, who can form a new world view as I did when I left Christianity before age 30. Third, they don't want me to try. And fourth, I don't mind that they're creationists.

What I do is what I describe below: I tell them what I believe instead of what they say they believe, why I believe it, and why I consider their contradictory beliefs wrong.

I have family members in two different literalist religious groups, Mormons, and a JW offshoot group. Love them, but can't communicate. They see it in others, but never in themselves, beam and mote parable is a good one.

Then it sounds like you wrote the above to yourself.

And for the fourth time, why did you want to tell me that?

Dialectic requires that the interlocutors address what one another write to resolve difference of opinion about what is the case, which is done in the manner I just described. Notice how every one of my comments in this reply make it evident that I have read and understood your words I quoted. Contrast that with your reply to me, which frankly sounds like you were addressing some other post.

So, in that light, did you want to comment on what you quoted from me: "[Plato's cave allegory], unlike biblical myth, is allegory." I gave my argument why I hold that opinion, but it didn't make your quote of my words. Do you agree with what I wrote? If you disagree, what makes it wrong in your opinion? It's not helpful to simply disagree or to disagree and give a contrary opinion. Disagreement needs to be accompanied by rebuttal - support of a contradictory position, which is an attempt at falsification.

 

[idea]

I don't understand why you posted that to me. Do you think I have angst? Do you think I precipitate it others? Do you think they have angst because they're literalists?

Yes, I know. Why did you want to tell me that? I was explaining why it is inappropriate to call myths allegories. They're different literary forms that contain different elements for different purposes.

Once again I ask, what are you posting that to me? It seems unrelated to my post. Did you think that that was my purpose? I don't try to change the minds of zealously religious people about their faith-based beliefs for severa reasons. First, it's impossible. Second, it would be cruel if they are in the last third of life; such people aren't as adaptable as younger thinkers, who can form a new world view as I did when I left Christianity before age 30. Third, they don't want me to try. And fourth, I don't mind that they're creationists.

What I do is what I describe below: I tell them what I believe instead of what they say they believe, why I believe it, and why I consider their contradictory beliefs wrong.

Then it sounds like you wrote the above to yourself.

And for the fourth time, why did you want to tell me that?

Dialectic requires that the interlocutors address what one another write to resolve difference of opinion about what is the case, which is done in the manner I just described. Notice how every one of my comments in this reply make it evident that I have read and understood your words I quoted. Contrast that with your reply to me, which frankly sounds like you were addressing some other post.

So, in that light, did you want to comment on what you quoted from me: "[Plato's cave allegory], unlike biblical myth, is allegory." I gave my argument why I hold that opinion, but it didn't make your quote of my words. Do you agree with what I wrote? If you disagree, what makes it wrong in your opinion? It's not helpful to simply disagree or to disagree and give a contrary opinion. Disagreement needs to be accompanied by rebuttal - support of a contradictory position, which is an attempt at falsification.

Your post elaborated on myths, allegories, different interpretations. I was agreeing with some of your post and wishing more groups would allow non-literal symbolic personal interpretations of scriptures as part of their beliefs.

If we could all embrace a mindset of - this is what it symbolizes to me, I understand others hold different interpretations and appreciate their thoughts too"

No debate, blind all seeing different parts of the elephant -

This forum, trying to observe if there is any non-hostile communication, if there are ways two people of different beliefs can appreciate and see one another...

No offense meant, sorry, I'm not so good at communicating.

 

[Unfettered]

Generally, my approach when someone says they've experienced something is to take the experience itself as given and instead focus on what we can reasonably infer from the experience.

When considering the experiences of others that one did not witness, this seems like a good approach.

I think it would be out of line to say to someone describing their personal experience "that didn't happen," but I do think it's fair game to point out that our attribution of experiences to causes is sometimes mistaken.

Even that seems presumptuous without first getting detail, but better than contradicting a person in complete ignorance.

A rustle in the bushes could just be the wind and not an animal;

It could also be an animal. A person who isn't/wasn't there is the least qualified to judge without additional information.

the fact that someone prayed for rain and then it rained doesn't mean that the rain necessarily came because of the prayer.

Nor does it mean that the rain wasn't an answer to prayer. Again, more information is needed.

There are a lot of very mainstream Christian apologetics approaches that have a strong gaslighting element to them. A few examples:

- "Deep down, atheists actually believe in God. They're just rebelling."

- "Evidence for God is obvious and all around us. If you don't see it, you're blinded by sin."

- "The Bible is perfectly consistent and true, but to read it 'properly,' you have to be led by the Holy Spirit."

- "Once saved, always saved. If you leave Christianity, you were never a true Christian."

I understand gaslighting to involve far more than a single statement made to a person as a contradiction of an expressed idea; gaslighting involves persistent efforts to upset the thinking of the target, and his means of processing reality. The second and fourth seem to come closest, as they directly confront the experienced reality of the person being spoken to.

 

[Pogo]

You've been discussing people claiming to know or have directly experienced a deity. I don't need to investigate such claims individually anymore, and I don't. How many times in a row do people need to fail to support that claim before one just stops asking for their evidence?

Your claim, your evidence.

 

[Unfettered]

Have you ever learned something new that changed what you thought you knew?

Yes. That has been a natural part of learning for me.

I thought I knew who my g-grandmother was, we all did, and we were wrong. She wasn't a bossy control freak. She was a fierce protector of her husband, loving, self-sacrificing, would rather us think ill of her than to think ill of him, so she didn't correct us. Our entire life - we were wrong - limited knowledge - then this new piece of info, it changed everything for everyone.

Without being omniscient there is always that new piece of previously unknown info that can change everything -

I agree that our understanding changes, and ought to. I disagree that one has to be omniscient to know something, or to know something substantive, or to know enough to make good judgments, etc. I present that disagreement because I cannot perceive any flexibility in your position. It seems to be saying omniscience or nothing; omniscience is the only degree of knowledge that actually equates to knowledge. If that's what you're saying, I don't agree with that.

I guess it depends on the degree to which we have experienced being wrong. We have all experienced being wrong on little things, wrong turn driving somewhere, ate the wrong food that made you sick, but what is the biggest thing you have experienced being wrong on? Regret over who you voted for? Or regret over what job you took? Or regret for something involving your kids?

My wife and once I came to the knowledge that we'd placed our children in an environment that was causing them great harm. It took a life-and-death crisis for us to "earn" that knowledge. That was an extremely painful time.

I don't know if that's the biggest thing I've been wrong on, but it was big.

Have you experienced leaving Plato's cave? In anything?

Absolutely. Transitioning from childhood to adulthood is a constant string of Plato's cave events. Life itself is. Once enlightened, we can never return to the same state of innocence or ignorance.

When you learn something new, that completely changes what you once believed, it's a paradigm shift in life. Many call it "midlife crisis". After going through it, everyone either appears to be in a cave, or escaped with that new understanding that everything is uncertain.

Betrayal trauma is a life paradigm shift. From trust, relying, depending to self-reliance. .. No going back into the cave when it is seen for what it is.

Pull back the curtain, see the wizard of Oz... kind of want others to see behind the curtain too.

Our minds really do play tricks on us. Ask any detective. Eyewitness accounts, what people think they saw and know, Eyewitness accounts are the least reliable piece of evidence. Our eyes deceive us. Its easy to feel certain about things that are not correct.

Thank you for sharing that perspective.

 

[idea]

It seems to be saying omniscience or nothing; omniscience is the only degree of knowledge that actually equates to knowledge. If that's what you're saying, I don't agree with that.

It might be semantics, but so much is wrapped in words - I was never an English major.

What do you mean by the phrase "degree of knowledge"?

When I hear someone say "I know....", the word "know" implies complete certainty to me.

If someone uses language such as "I think that...", this to me would imply different degrees, with room to change, room to learn, to have a mutual 2-way conversation.

When you say "I know...", should I really be hearing "I think..."? To what degree do you perceive yourself "knowing" your currently most cherished beliefs?

That word, "know"... I can say I'm a SME, can say I have x years experience working in y field, but we still seek cold eyes reviews if you are familiar with those terms? If "know" = familiar then Aristotle had it right "The more you know, the more you realize you don't know."

I did not grow up in the Mormon faith, was from a different spirit filled group who used words like "know", truth, authority etc. in quite binary terms, no room to listen to another viewpoint, no room to question authority.

Do you feel free to question the authority of President Nelson? Do you believe your group is the only "authority" (as TR questions seem to say), or are you using the word "know" as something with degrees, such as experience with, thought patterns, something you are open to CER on? Just trying to clarify. I get knee-jerk trigger reactions to words like "know" and "authority" from religious folks.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Personally, I find Plato's Allegory of the Cave - and especially how I see it commonly used - very gaslightly.

If you've found a new paradigm that works for you, great. You can do that without insinuating that everyone else's paradigms are all nothing but false shadows and tricks of the light.

Can you?

 

[Unfettered]

I think it would be useful to step back and ask yourself a question: given everything you believe about God, what does the existence of God imply or predict?

The existence of God implies nothing. It predicts nothing.

The specifics will vary depending of the characteristics of your God, but I bet that if you reflect a bit, you can think of observable things that someone could look for besides just "God would give subjective, personal experiences to believers like me."

How would you or I know the difference unless God, himself, were to explain his objectives and methods? Not even us humans act so; why should we expect God to? For example, if I want you to be able to identify me, unless you and I are the only people in existence, I have to disclose to you, in advance, how you can identify me.

The analogy I like to use is the Moon: we can investigate whether the Moon exists in a bunch of different ways; they all agree with each other and all confirm the Moon's existence and attributes. If your God has at least as much impact on us as the Moon does, I would expect that God would leave at least as robust a body of evidence as the Moon does. Maybe we wouldn't be able to bounce a laser of God to see how far away he is, but there should be some collection of tests that we could do that would be just as reliable.

I fully agree. So my follow up question must be: Who determines what those tests are and how they are to be conducted?

 

[Unfettered]

FYI: this is gaslighting.

No, it's not. It is a response to a question directly asked of me.

 

[Unfettered]

I recall a heated discussion I had with another RF poster about a year ago in which he took great offense at my telling him that I didn't believe him when he said that he knew that his god existed because he had experienced this god. Who was gaslighting whom in that discussion?

And there was no shaming, mockery, or insult on my part - just a statement of incredulity on my part - which he took offense at. I merely told him that I once said the things he was saying, but eventually came to understand my experience differently and in naturalistic terms, and explained why that happened -the evidence that convinced me to change my opinion.

I can't see that anyone was doing any gaslighting. He made an assertion that didn't affect anyone but himself, and you said you didn't believe him, following that up with the reasons why you didn't believe him.

You offer evidence if you have it. If you can't do that, you shouldn't expect an empiricist to believe you when you make so extraordinary a claim.

I'm sorry, but it is not as simple as you make it sound. If that means we have no discussion, then we have no discussion.

I don't believe that a god promised you anything. You might be correct, but why should I believe that you are just because you feel certain?

You shouldn't. And I'm not asking you to.

That shouldn't anger you.

It doesn't anger me.

It's perfectly reasonable that a critical thinker rejects your unfalsifiable claim about gods.

I agree.

Believer frequently report that they dislike this kind of attitude and understand it in the terms you have used - stupid, irrational -

You may be confusing my posts with someone else's. I have not used those words in response to your disbelief, nor have I even expressed a sentiment compatible with those words in response to your disbelief. If you believe I have, please quote them.

and that the skeptic was hostile to them and demeaned them, but that's not what I see. I see believers responding to posts just like this one as if they were personal attacks on them and their god as I described above. I wish that I could link you to that discussion, but RF doesn't permit quoting other posters from other threads to make a point. This guy was fuming hostile, and I'd love for you to see what triggered him.

I don't doubt for a moment that the discussion occurred as you remember. If you feel that this present discussion relies on my reading that other discussion, you can post it. Or copy/paste the relevant portions. You don't have to use the forum quote tools if they are problematic.

I don't believe it is necessary, however; I haven't disputed or expressed lack of understanding on that point.

 

[Unfettered]

1. why do you think you are experiencing a God at all?

Because claims attributed to God were made, conditions for testing the claims were provided; I tested the claims using the conditions provided, the claims were verified, and man is incapable of fulfilling the claims. Based on my experience it would be illogical for me to conclude that the fulfillment of the claims didn't occur, or that they were fulfilled by someone other than the purported claimant.

2. unless you are some sort of special human with extrasensory perception you should be able to explain how anyone else can experience God. You haven't.

As I said in another recent post to a different poster, it is not as simple as you make it sound. If that means we have no discussion, then we have no discussion.

It's more likley you made the things happen. Confirmation bias.

I appreciate the offer of that possibility. But I am incapable of fulfilling the claims that were made. I have no such power.

That happens with Hindus too. Children mimic their parents.

You did not address the other half of my statement: "The experiences I have had with God are my own."

Any response to my two statements that ignores or fails to account for both statements is an incomplete response.

Gods are still not known to exist as a factual matter.

We're going in circles because my response is as it was before: "Perhaps not to you, but you are not the only person."

It's questionable when people claim to experience a God. There are better explanations.

When one is ignorant of the reasons why the claim is made, or disagrees with them, I'm sure there are.

We critical thinkers. Those asking you questions about your religious claims.

I am a critical thinker. While I'm not upset that I appear not be included in your group, I do resent not being included. Unless you can confirm that I am included.

I question anyone I encounter, like you. The claims are extraordinary, yet the claimants can't explain that they actually know what they are claiming. Even you can't muster any satisfactory explanation. It's more likely you imagine experiences with a God.

Now you're having a conversation with yourself, because you're drawing conclusions before my responses are exhausted.

Creationism is a huge red flag for those believers who claim to relate to a god. Creationism is fraud and factually incorrect. Also when we hear evanglicals claim the God sent Trump, well, that's laughable. It's nothing less than delusion. Rational minds can easily distill disinformation from factual information.

I don't see how this has anything to do with what we've been talking about.

If you struggle to recognize bias you might have bias.

I agree.

Like the example I just gave, if a person thinks God sent trump, well that illustrates a bias, and an excuse for the person to justify support for a disturbed and dangerous candidate.

Not relevant; no comment.

Would you reject Muslims who say God orders them to attack Their enemies with a suicide bomb?

I don't understand the question. But I would certainly condemn the action, and wouldn't hesitate to seek to hold the perpetrators accountable.

How about the 9-11 hijackers? Think about it, they are dying because they are convinced God told them to do these acts. Are you convinced?

Convinced of what, exactly?

Or are they victims of being conditioned to believe God told them to?

I wouldn't have any idea whether their beliefs were genuine or were, effectively, "programming."

I have been asking believers how they know a God exists since 1996. And in all that time none have been able to explain that their experience is genuine.

0% suggests a communication problem. Have you ever looked closely at your methods? Have you asked persons to provide feedback? Do you impose your own views or bias onto the understanding of others when asking your questions? Do you preclude them from expressing themselves from within the framework of their understanding?

All of them admitted to being exposed to religion, jus like you.

What does that have to do with me? I have stated two or three times that my experiences are mine.

Several have claimed a doomsday date, yet none have been true.

Then they were clearly mistaken in those predictions.

As a skeptic I resist believing in extraordinary claims.

This doesn't communicate anything extraordinary; a skeptic is expected to be skeptical.

And the more extraordinary, the more questions. It's a pattern that the more questions asked the less the claimant can answer.

Again, have you examined your methods? Are your questions in this thread more demand than question or more question than demand?

There are studies in the social sciences that explain how people are gullible and susceptible to belief in irrational ideas.

No doubt.

Look at QAnon, it has many believers in its nonsense.

Not relevant to our discussion.

 

[Unfettered]

It's an obscur definition to use "religion" in reference to non-religious activities. I race bikes, and some call it a religion because of the extreme nature of the competition. I watch Formula 1, and you could call that a religion. This type of word usage is casual, not descriptive. If I am asked what religion I am on a government census I can't write down "bike racer". No, it's atheist, or Buddhist.

You changed the definition I provided and then disagreed with your new definition. I quote:

"The word itself points to the state of having gone back and read something that one had read before (re- lig -ion), and the word was first used relative to a person's worldview and/or moral understanding."

As you can see, I clearly defined the term as referring to one's worldview and/or moral understanding. The definition and explanation offer no room for things like bike riding or race watching, simple or habitual. You straw-manned my definition. Please respond to what I offered, or not at all, I guess.

When I see fervent religious folk trying to assert that atheism is a religion there is some ulterior motive.

I didn't assert that atheism is a religion. I asserted that every human being that espouses a moral system has a religion, because that's what the word refers to. The word in its naked form is wholly devoid of references to deities. It means exactly what I have presented:

re- (return to, or returned to)
lig (read, or reading)
-ion (the state of being, or the state of having done)

I necessarily must forgo additional responses until I can see that our discussion conforms to the good-faith standard. If you don't agree with why I assert that every person who claims a moral standard has, thereby, a "religion" and is, therefore "religious" within that framework, you are free to express that disagreement. But we can't have a discussion if responses are made to points or claims or words not spoken by those to whom they are attributed.

 

[Unfettered]

Not anymore. That would be an archaic usage now. The most literal definitions of religion involve the supernatural

I am aware of the drift that has affected the word. Clearly I am offering the discussion on the word itself, which very effectively gives expression to what "religion" actually is—regular appeal to a moral system or standard. How is that not relevant? My little sister's middle name is "Gay." Does that mean that my parents named her after a homosexual, or because she was homosexual, or because they expected her to become so? Because it has been a long time since society used the word "gay" in its now-archaic sense. Does that change the fact that they named her "gay" for feelings of felicity and joy? Clearly not. Same principle.

A good-faith discussion would not split hairs on this point. The word "religion" is what it is. It points to something applicable to all morally bound human beings. How is it controversial because societies have pushed the word in a single direction? Why can we not acknowledge what is self-evident on the question and move on?

Have you heard of the etymological fallacy? From Wiki:

I'm not arguing that the customary usage is incorrect. I'm pointing out that it is inadequate to reality.

Theists like to taunt atheists by calling their humanist belief set a religion, science their god, and their reliance on science faith ("I don't have enough faith to be an atheist"), but most atheists reject that usage and just see it as an effort to level the playing field - a field that is most definitely not level.

As I just said to F1fan, I have not asserted that atheism is a religion. I have said only that all humans that espouse or claim or adhere to a moral system have a "religion" and are within that framework "religious," for that is what the words mean. It is reality that the constriction of the word to exclude all moral systems but those that invoke a deity is a subsequent superimposition, and one that distorts the meaning of the word away from reality.

I'm not twisting anyone's arm here. If you don't agree that the word applies to you, I have nothing more to say about that.

 

[Unfettered]

It might be semantics, but so much is wrapped in words - I was never an English major.

What do you mean by the phrase "degree of knowledge"?

I mean to say that knowledge often accumulates by degrees. An incomplete knowledge is not zero knowledge.

When I hear someone say "I know....", the word "know" implies complete certainty to me.

That is reasonable. But I don't think it's reasonable to infer from the statement "I know..." that the person is saying he's omniscient.

If someone uses language such as "I think that...", this to me would imply different degrees, with room to change, room to learn, to have a mutual 2-way conversation.

I agree.

When you say "I know...", should I really be hearing "I think..."? To what degree do you perceive yourself "knowing" your currently most cherished beliefs?

I don't claim to "know" what I "believe." I claim to believe what I believe and know what I know.

That word, "know"... I can say I'm a SME, can say I have x years experience working in y field, but we still seek cold eyes reviews if you are familiar with those terms? If "know" = familiar then Aristotle had it right "The more you know, the more you realize you don't know."

OK. I see what you're saying, and why what I'm saying may be confusing to you.

I have been using the term "know" to connote certainty, not just familiarity. If we were speaking Spanish, the difference would be "Ser" vs "Conocer," both of which mean "to know," but where Ser means to know a thing in the abstract and Conocer means to be familiar with. You don't use Ser, for example, when you're talking about knowing a person; that would make no sense; it would be like saying "I know Bob [exists]"; you'd use Conocer ("I am acquainted with Bob").

English doesn't inherently have this distinction in the words "I know."

I did not grow up in the Mormon faith, was from a different spirit filled group who used words like "know", truth, authority etc. in quite binary terms, no room to listen to another viewpoint, no room to question authority.

Thank you for adding that history. That helps me understand.

Do you feel free to question the authority of President Nelson?

I am free to question his authority, but I am not free to infect the body of the church with divisiveness on the basis of my views on his authority. Nor can I affect his authority as it pertains to his appointment by God. What I am fully free to do, however, is to unyoke myself from the authority I have consented to afford him, which I granted in the first place on the basis of my acceptance of his appointment (as the prophet) by God.

You may already know this, but this principle is referred to as "common consent" in the religion. The principle is practiced at every level of administration in the church, from the prophet to the persons who work with the toddlers in the nursery of the local congregations. No one is granted authority to act in a capacity without the consent of the persons of the congregation to which the authority is yoked. For example, the authority of the prophet is consented to by the entire body of the church; the authority of a local leader is consented to by his or her respective local congregation, etc. Or not—though unfounded declination of consent may necessarily result in restrictions on membership or participation (or revocation of membership in the most extreme cases).

Does that make sense, or help explain my relationship to the prophet's authority?

Do you believe your group is the only "authority" (as TR questions seem to say), or are you using the word "know" as something with degrees, such as experience with, thought patterns, something you are open to CER on? Just trying to clarify. I get knee-jerk trigger reactions to words like "know" and "authority" from religious folks.

I need you to expound on what you're asking relative to the acronyms TR and CER. Not sure what you're asking there.

As for the word "know," it is most common in my religion that people use the word to convey the idea of certainty, as opposed to familiarity. Though I cannot say that the distinction has much significance in the vernacular of our religion. We tend to differentiate most between "believe" and "know" rather than "know" (certainty) and "know" (familiarity). I don't know that this attribute is entirely unique to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but I cannot think of another religion that emphasizes as strongly the importance of seeking to know the truth for oneself, as opposed to merely believing what others say or believe. The religion itself is the result of the effort of its first prophet to know the truth for himself.

All that said, within the canon of our scripture it is seen that God offers a clear and equal provision for salvation for those who "believe" the witness of those who "know":

"To some it is given by the Holy Ghost to know that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and that he was crucified for the sins of the world. To others it is given to believe on their words, that they also might have eternal life if they continue faithful." (Doctrine and Covenants | Section 46:13 - 14)​

I don't know if that answers your question... ?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, it's not. It is a response to a question directly asked of me.

It's both.

 

[PureX]

Certainty, like perfection, infinity, equality, and various other absolutes, are terms that refer to ideals that no human can attain so as to verify their actuality. Although, we humans really do like to use these terms to exaggerate for expressive effect even though it's both dishonest and inaccurate.

Knowing, on the other hand, refers to direct personal experience as opposed to an inerrant understanding. So that we humans can know things that may not necessarily be true, but that function as true according to our direct personal experience and understanding. They are true within the limitations of individual human understanding.

I generally don't debate with someone that offers me knowledge based on an experience that I have not had. Because I cannot know what they know. I can only listen and consider.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The existence of God implies nothing. It predicts nothing.

So to you, God is nothing more than an entity who popped into your head to convince you of its existence and "make promises"?

You can't think of anything where you could say "if God exists, things will be this way and if he doesn't exist, things will be that way?"

You identify as a Christian; there's nothing in that that speaks to things about God? If so, you'd be the first Christian I've met who's a Christian for no reason at all.

How would you or I know the difference unless God, himself, were to explain his objectives and methods? Not even us humans act so; why should we expect God to? For example, if I want you to be able to identify me, unless you and I are the only people in existence, I have to disclose to you, in advance, how you can identify me.

You've told us that you experienced God. Since you somehow managed to conclude that the thing you experienced was God and not some non-God thing, apparently, you have criteria for what constitutes a God... at least well enough to tell God apart from other things. So what are these criteria?

I fully agree. So my follow up question must be: Who determines what those tests are and how they are to be conducted?

You do.

You provide a set of claims or beliefs about the God you believe in. This allows predictions to be inferred from those claims, and then tests can be determined to test those predictions.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Even that seems presumptuous without first getting detail, but better than contradicting a person in complete ignorance.

Inferring the existence of a thing from an experience can be broken down into a few steps:

1. I experienced X.
2. The experience of X implies phenomena A, B, C, etc.
3. Phenomena A, B, C, etc. are explainable by thing Y.
4. Phenomena A, B, C, etc., are not explainable by any other thing.
5. Therefore, I know that thing Y exists.

The person with the experience is the best judge of step 1. However, that's the only step where the person with the experience is especially suited to make a determination. Given some "X", potentially anyone can judge that a step has been demonstrated (or validly point out that the person with the experience made a mistake at that step).

It could also be an animal. A person who isn't/wasn't there is the least qualified to judge without additional information.

Nor does it mean that the rain wasn't an answer to prayer. Again, more information is needed.

In both cases, without the rustling/rain, etc. and in the absence of other information, we're at "maybe the animal/rain-god exists and maybe it doesn't."

After the rustling/rain happens, we're still at "maybe the animal/rain-god exists and maybe it doesn't." The event hasn't really given us any new knowledge. The information at hand is still entirely consistent with either conclusion.

I understand gaslighting to involve far more than a single statement made to a person as a contradiction of an expressed idea; gaslighting involves persistent efforts to upset the thinking of the target, and his means of processing reality.

I was talking about ongoing approaches that can be summed up in the one line I gave.

The second and fourth seem to come closest, as they directly confront the experienced reality of the person being spoken to.

They're all gaslighting.