Evidence For the Existence a God?

[Storm]

Then I'll rephrase: It's evidence for chemical reactions in the brain, not for a god.

Then we're back or having no evidence for emotions, too. You can't have it both ways.

How about the human mind's extreme susceptibility to hallucination and wishful thinking? That's not a reason to doubt your experience?

Thanks to neurotheology, which clearly shows that such experiences are neither, no.

Should we base our lives around every realistic daydream, powerful emotional experience, or even drug-induced hallucination, and take those experiences as evidence for a god?

If you had ever had such an experience, you would realize that comparing them to daydreams and the like is ridiculous. (That sounds a bit condescending, which was not my intent, but I can't think of a better way to say it, so I'll just apologize for it.) I wish I could describe it so you'd understand that, but I can't.

As for drugs, I've never experimented with entheogens myself, but it's possible that they trigger genuine mystical experiences. I don't think it's a healthy way to go about cultivating them, but I'm biased.

Anyway, it's a tricky line to draw, and I don't presume. Some people see the universe itself as evidence of God, others think science disproves it, and it all comes down to philosophical assumptions with nothing to back them up.

You've been perfectly courteous, so this really isn't directed at you, but all I ask is to be left to follow my path in peace. There's no objective evidence for OR against God. I won't try to convert you, so don't try to convert me.

 

[CarlinKnew]

Then we're back or having no evidence for emotions, too. You can't have it both ways.

"Emotion" is just the word we use for chemical reactions in the brain and the changes in the body's physiology.

Thanks to neurotheology, which clearly shows that such experiences are neither, no.

Your experience was monitored and verified by science?

If you had ever had such an experience, you would realize that comparing them to daydreams and the like is ridiculous. (That sounds a bit condescending, which was not my intent, but I can't think of a better way to say it, so I'll just apologize for it.) I wish I could describe it so you'd understand that, but I can't.

As for drugs, I've never experimented with entheogens myself, but it's possible that they trigger genuine mystical experiences. I don't think it's a healthy way to go about cultivating them, but I'm biased.

The more reasonable, evidence-supported explanation is that hallucinogenic drugs cause chemical reactions in the brain that cause hallucinations.

Anyway, it's a tricky line to draw, and I don't presume. Some people see the universe itself as evidence of God, others think science disproves it, and it all comes down to philosophical assumptions with nothing to back them up.

You've been perfectly courteous, so this really isn't directed at you, but all I ask is to be left to follow my path in peace. There's no objective evidence for OR against God. I won't try to convert you, so don't try to convert me.

And when there's no evidence for something, we naturally assume that it doesn't exist, as with fairies and unicorns and so on.

 

[Storm]

"Emotion" is just the word we use for chemical reactions in the brain and the changes in the body's physiology.

No, it isn't. It's an experienced reality. If it were all materialism, CBT and the pacebo effect wouldn't work.

Your experience was monitored and verified by science?

No, but inadequate descriptions are still enough to say, "yeah, that's what that was," and I learned to self-induce (repeatability) milder states. Just as I don't need a neuroscan to know I'm in love, I don't need one to know I was in trance states.

The more reasonable, evidence-supported explanation is that hallucinogenic drugs cause chemical reactions in the brain that cause hallucinations.

I tend to agree, I'm just not prepared to dismiss the alternative. Again, trance states are neurologically quite different from hallucination.

And when there's no evidence for something, we naturally assume that it doesn't exist, as with fairies and unicorns and so on.

Ah, but there is. It's just subjective, like emotion or music.

 

[Willamena]

I'm not an expert in neuroscience, but my basic understanding is this: a thought can stimulate a chemical reaction in the brain, which triggers changes in the body's physiology. We label those changes as emotions. So the chemical reaction comes first.

Um... doesn't your description list "thought" coming first?

 

[CarlinKnew]

No, it isn't. It's an experienced reality. If it were all materialism, CBT and the pacebo effect wouldn't work.

We can monitor the chemical reactions of emotions. The chemicals cause physical sensations; that sensation is experienced. Why do you say CBT and the placebo effect wouldn't work?

No, but inadequate descriptions are still enough to say, "yeah, that's what that was," and I learned to self-induce (repeatability) milder states. Just as I don't need a neuroscan to know I'm in love, I don't need one to know I was in trance states.

The human brain is capable of reaching trance states; it's a leap of faith to ascribe these trance states to a god.

Ah, but there is. It's just subjective, like emotion or music.

We have evidence that emotions and music exist. There's no evidence that a god exists.

 

[Storm]

We can monitor the chemical reactions of emotions.

That's not the same thing as saying that's all there is to them.

The chemicals cause physical sensations; that sensation is experienced. Why do you say CBT and the placebo effect wouldn't work?

Because they're prime examples of the immaterial affecting the material.

The human brain is capable of reaching trance states; it's a leap of faith to ascribe these trance states to a god.

Not for me.

We have evidence that emotions and music exist. There's no evidence that a god exists.

Repetition doesn't make it true.

Sorry for the short reply, I have to leave shortly.

 

[CarlinKnew]

Um... doesn't your description list "thought" coming first?

I shouldn't have said first in that context. You asked what comes first: chemical reactions or emotions. The chemical reactions of the brain happen before the emotions (physiological changes of the body).

 

[CarlinKnew]

That's not the same thing as saying that's all there is to them.

And those chemical reactions stimulate sensations in the body. There's no reason to believe there is anything "deeper" about emotions than that explanation.

Because they're prime examples of the immaterial affecting the material.

How's that? A false belief can affect the brain because of the chemicals released as a result of that belief. If someone told me I just won a million dollars, pleasurable chemicals would be exploding in my brain, even if that person was lying to me. There's nothing immaterial about it, my brain is simply reacting to a stimulus.

Not for me.

Because you believe your experience was legitimate. How are you so sure? The human mind is extremely susceptible to false belief, hallucination, and wishful thinking.

Repetition doesn't make it true.

Are you denying the existence of emotions and music? Our only reliable method of understanding reality is science, the use of evidence.

 

[Willamena]

I shouldn't have said first in that context. You asked what comes first: chemical reactions or emotions. The chemical reactions of the brain happen before the emotions (physiological changes of the body).

But you did say it right. The thought comes first. And my question was not about emotions, but about "love".

 

[Deftide]

I need to bust in here.(not reading 17 pages) Are you trying to say that emotions are evidence for the existence of God?

 

[Storm]

How's that? A false belief can affect the brain because of the chemicals released as a result of that belief. If someone told me I just won a million dollars, pleasurable chemicals would be exploding in my brain, even if that person was lying to me. There's nothing immaterial about it, my brain is simply reacting to a stimulus.

What in the world does that have to do with CBT and the palcebo effect?

Because you believe your experience was legitimate. How are you so sure? The human mind is extremely susceptible to false belief, hallucination, and wishful thinking.

Because science says it wasn't any of those. False belief and wishful thinking don't apply because I had no belief to start with, and neuroltheology clearly shows it wasn't hallucination. So I have to wonder, why do you keep bringing it up? Do you simply reject any science that doesn't support your pre0existing conclusions?

Are you denying the existence of emotions and music?

Of course not, and I'll thank you not to attribute such ludicrous crap to me.

Our only reliable method of understanding reality is science, the use of evidence.

This is a philosophical assumption with nothing to back it up.

I need to bust in here.(not reading 17 pages) Are you trying to say that emotions are evidence for the existence of God?

No.

 

[CarlinKnew]

What in the world does that have to do with CBT and the palcebo effect?

It demonstrates the effect of a belief on the brain, even if that belief is false. Similarly if someone takes a pill that they believe is going to cure them, that may reduce their stress about the situation; stress has a negative impact on the immune system.

Because science says it wasn't any of those. False belief and wishful thinking don't apply because I had no belief to start with, and neuroltheology clearly shows it wasn't hallucination. So I have to wonder, why do you keep bringing it up? Do you simply reject any science that doesn't support your pre0existing conclusions?

You can't use science to support your personal experience unless that experience was tested scientifically. If I have a deep, "spiritual" experience about invisible unicorns, and therefore claim that invisible unicorns exist, am I right in saying that science is on my side?

Of course not, and I'll thank you not to attribute such ludicrous crap to me.

Then why'd you mention them?

This is a philosophical assumption with nothing to back it up.

Until some other method of understanding reality is proven to be reliable, that assumption is accurate.

 

[Storm]

It demonstrates the effect of a belief on the brain, even if that belief is false. Similarly if someone takes a pill that they believe is going to cure them, that may reduce their stress about the situation; stress has a negative impact on the immune system.

There's more to it than that. Reduction in stress doesn't cure tumors.

You can't use science to support your personal experience unless that experience was tested scientifically. If I have a deep, "spiritual" experience about invisible unicorns, and therefore claim that invisible unicorns exist, am I right in saying that science is on my side?

If you can do it with love, I can do it with God.

Then why'd you mention them?

Because they are experiences science cannot adequately describe.

Until some other method of understanding reality is proven to be reliable, that assumption is accurate.

It's called experience. You know, kinda the foundation of science (can't observe without it, after all). There's also philosophy.

 

[CarlinKnew]

There's more to it than that. Reduction in stress doesn't cure tumors.

It may aid the healing process. There's no reason to believe there's more to it than that.

If you can do it with love, I can do it with God.

Love, as in: feelings of strong affection, is an emotion. Are you claiming we don't have sufficient scientific evidence to support the existence of emotions?

Because they are experiences science cannot adequately describe.

Really? What's the big mystery about music and emotions that science can't explain?

t's called experience. You know, kinda the foundation of science (can't observe without it, after all). There's also philosophy.

Science isn't founded on personal, emotional experience. We know that our emotions aren't always reliable, so we use the scientific method to come to conclusions about reality.

 

[Storm]

We're just talking in circles now. Unless you've got something new to say, I'm jumping off the merry-go-round.

 

[EverChanging]

Since this discussion has veered into neurotheology, I should add my own perspective because I have had one (and depending on your definitions, two) "spiritual" experiences for lack of a better term, and they were not drug-induced, nor was I taking any powerful medications that might stimulate dreams, etc.

If you can do it with love, I can do it with God.

The emotion we refer to as "love" has a physiological basis that can be detected. That doesn't mean that love is a spiritual entity or springs from a non-material source.

It's called experience. You know, kinda the foundation of science (can't observe without it, after all). There's also philosophy.

I, too, have experienced what may be called a theophany, spiritual experience, or communication. But these experiences are often highly emotional, as mine was, and therefore can influence the way a person thinks and acts in the future. But our emotions can mislead us. A spiritual experience gives us no evidence that it came from anywhere outside of the brain just as our experience of love doesn't give us any evidence that there is anything other than a physiological basis for it. Just because we don't completely understand it doesn't mean that there is automatically a supernatural explanation for it or that it came from a god or a nonmaterial realm. Mystical experiences can happen naturally, but they can also happen under hypnosis or when a person takes drugs, etc. This is evidence that there are probably various triggers of mystical experiences. If taking a physical substance that physically affects the brain can cause these experiences, is this not evidence that they are rooted in our brain?

As for the reliability of reason, interpretting scientific data takes reasoning and logic. Our scientific advances have given us incredible medical technology, electricity, space travel, and many other benefits. The scientific method helps us refine our process of reasoning. Our success with science reveals that reasoning and logic -- which helps us come to conclusions when we gather empirical data -- are indeed connected to the universe: otherwise, how would we have learned how to achieve space travel?

Back to spiritual experiences: no, we don't completely understand them, but for centuries natural explanations have been replacing supernatural ones. I have yet to come across a natural explanation being supplanted by a supernatural one. Until I come across an example of that, I have no reason to believe in any type of supernatural reality.

There are physical/chemical triggers for mystical experiences and possibly other triggers we don't understand: that doesn't mean we will never understand it scientifically. We are already uncovering some of the underlying neurological/chemical basis for these experiences. Therefore, I do not assume that my experiences -- which were incredibly beautiful, incredibly profound, experiences that will never, ever leave me until the day I die -- came from a god or any supernatural source.

If I ever come across evidence for a god or supernaturalism, I will have to re-think my conclusion.

 

[Quagmire]

If a large, diverse team of the most trusted of scientists in the world were to follow a man around and document his every move as he performs ridiculous, unexplainable miracles, I would take that as evidence for a god.

But wouldn't you then be making the same mistake our ancestors did?

I mean they considered the sun rising in the morning an unexplained miracle, and thus attributed it to "God" (and I'm sure all this was endorsed by their most trusted Shamans and holy men).

 

[Azakel]

But wouldn't you then be making the same mistake our ancestors did?

I mean they considered the sun rising in the morning an unexplained miracle, and thus attributed it to "God" (and I'm sure all this was endorsed by their most trusted Shamans and holy men).

You mean it's not? I'm going to have to have a talk word with my Shamanistic Holy Man.

 

[Anti-thesisofreason]

Herein lies the problem;

Depending on which way someones leaning there isn't anything that could be taken as evidence for the existence of God that couldn't also be explained by natural causes.

Conversely, there isn't anything in nature that can't be seen as evidence for the existence of God.

Yes the spiritual has a tendency to manifest in a way that appears to be coincidence.

 

[Anti-thesisofreason]

Because nothing else ever has, and there's no reason to believe that anything else ever will.

That sounds very defeatist to me.

You mean to tell me we've hit the limit in ways we can think and rationalize so there is no reason to look any further for better ways to think and rationalize??? There's no reason to improve our methods?