Great Debates: Does God Exist?...LeannaBard and George-ananda

[George-ananda]

Welcome to the debate all. All can view but only the the two principles can post.

 

[George-ananda]

The debate is over and a winner has been declared: GEORGE-ANANDA

God hereby exists

 

[LeannaBard]

Well, Sorry to see there was a dealine. I word and have school every weekday. Would you actually like to have a debate before declaring yourself winner?

 

[George-ananda]

Well, Sorry to see there was a dealine. I word and have school every weekday. Would you actually like to have a debate before declaring yourself winner?

Sure, I'm still game. The good thing about this format is you can go seconds, minutes, hours, days between posts.......

 

[LeannaBard]

Okay, I'll start by stating my position.
I do not believe in any Gods. I do not think there is any evidence sufficient to support the existence of a deity, therefore the belief in any god is unjustified and unreasonable. All arguments I have heard in support of theism or deism are fallacious and unsound.

 

[George-ananda]

I believe God exists because the non-dual (God and creation are not-two) God/Brahman is the experience of the great Hindu masters and mystics of other traditions,

Why do I accept their teaching? First I believe from my years of study of the paranormal this universe is indeed something vastly more complex than what is understood by atheist-materialist thought. What is this 'more' beyond our normal mundane world? Well, there are teachers that present their position on the answer to this question. Well I've learned the answers all seem to dovetail on a view of the universe in which the paranormal things I studied are just part and parcel of this grander view of the universe. There are interpenetrating realms beyond these familiar three dimensions. An entire astral realm exists in dimensions beyond our three (4th?, 5th?) and these realms have matter at vibratory levels orders of magnitude finer. This view holds that it is all just One/God/Brahman. God in his creative nature produces a play/drama. He separated Himself from Himself into finite forms and then returns Himself to Himself. Our sense of separateness is just an illusion to overcome.

So I believe God exists based on the teachings of the greatest teachers I have experienced.

 

[LeannaBard]

I see a lot of claims there, but no supporting evidence to suggest that the teaching are true or represent reality. Is there any reason anybody should consider these claims as anything more than baseless?

 

[George-ananda]

Well actually, great spiritual teachers of the tradition actually say don't take our words for it, test and experience for yourself and then you will KNOW. The experiencing is not likely to happen in our first meditation session, so until we experience we have to take what they say as a hypothesis.

I accept their hypothesis as the clearly the greatest one that has been presented to my mind. The atheist-materialist hypothesis is clearly not able to satisfy based on the study I have made of various paranormal phenomena and 'miracles' associated with great masters (one in particular).

It is reasonable to accept the hypothesis that most concurs with evidence and logic.

 

[George-ananda]

So what we have is real-world evidence (things that can't be explained by the ordinary) and theoretical evidence (a framework from the great wisdom traditions of the east) correlating. This is my evidence that the worldview of these sages/mystics/masters is the most reasonable worldview presented to us..

 

[LeannaBard]

You still haven't offered any evidence as to why anybody should believe in a god. You have given a vague account of what you say is some personal experience that you think feels like affriming the existence of a god. It is nothing but an argument from personal experience. There is no way for anyone else to verify that what you are saying ever happened, that you interpreted it the way it really happened, etc. The human mind is very fallible. There are plenty of people who experience things that reasonable people know are not really happening. We also know eyewitness testionies are often inaccurate, which shows that no matter what you think happened, it may not have actually happened that way. That is why I, or any other atheist, would require actual evidence before we believed that there is a god.

 

[George-ananda]

You may not be getting the gist of my line of argumentation. I'm not taking the normal line of argumentation that you may be expecting. I'm not referring to any of my personal experiences here either.

What I'm talking about is the body of modern paranormal research; millions of words have been collected and written. Some of the subjects I've studied include:

*Near Death Experiences (esp. knowing things that couldn't have been known normally)
*Childhood Reincarnation memories (esp. with facts that couldn't have been known normally)
*Spirit Communications (esp. with facts that couldn't have been known normally)
*Healing Miracles (esp. with respect to prayers to holy figures)
*Paranormal events that surround religious figures
*The Hindu Milk Miracle of a few years ago
*etc., etc.

For all these things data can be collected and analyzed objectively. One must consider all possible explanations within the range of the normal first. If there is a reoccurring pattern of events that cannot reasonably be explained by atheistic-materialist concepts then we must be willing to expand our concepts.

This is just the first step in my line of argumentation for God's existence.

 

[LeannaBard]

You may not be getting the gist of my line of argumentation. I'm not taking the normal line of argumentation that you may be expecting. I'm not referring to any of my personal experiences here either.

What I'm talking about is the body of modern paranormal research; millions of words have been collected and written. Some of the subjects I've studied include:

*Near Death Experiences (esp. knowing things that couldn't have been known normally)
*Childhood Reincarnation memories (esp. with facts that couldn't have been known normally)
*Spirit Communications (esp. with facts that couldn't have been known normally)
*Healing Miracles (esp. with respect to prayers to holy figures)
*Paranormal events that surround religious figures
*The Hindu Milk Miracle of a few years ago
*etc., etc.

For all these things data can be collected and analyzed objectively. One must consider all possible explanations within the range of the normal first. If there is a reoccurring pattern of events that cannot reasonably be explained by atheistic-materialist concepts then we must be willing to expand our concepts.

This is just the first step in my line of argumentation for God's existence.

None of those things are evidence of the existence of god, or of the supernatural. Near death experiences have been explained scientifically, spirit communications, healing miracles, etc. have often been confirmed fraud or mere coincidence. Other times stories with natural explanations are embelished beyond belief because of confirmation bias, and half the time, people are just wrong about what they experienced. There has never been ANY conclusive evidence to sugest that there is anything spiritual, paranormal, or supernatural involved in any of them.
Even in cases where there is no known explanation, it would be a mistake to jump to the conclusion that magic is the answer. Not a single time in history has some phenomenon been confirmed to be supernatural. Many times in history things have been confirmed to have a natural explanation, demonstable by scientific methods. And never has anyone proven a scientific theory wrong and replaced it with something magical. Many years ago, people were using the fact that sin caused disease and that the earth didn't "fall out of space" as evidence that god must exist.
If you have evidence for the existence of any of these things being supernatural, or even better that a god exists, since that is the topic of debate, please present them. But claiming that these "mysteries" are evidence is just an argument from ignorance, which is a logical fallacy.

 

[George-ananda]

So you are claiming every paranormal claim in history is ultimately false? Who officially determines that? No opinion is official. Every subject I listed is very controversial. To debate that we will need to get down and dirty into the details of claims. I need to pick a subject to start with??? Let's start with Near Death Experiences where the experiencers know things that they could not reasonably have known through normal sensory input. To show that it has not all been scientifically explained let me quote from the International Association for Near Death Studies website:

Veridical Near-Death Experiences
Veridical near-death experiences are NDEs in which people reportedly out-of-body have observed events or gathered information that was verified by others upon the experiencer’s return to a conscious state. These are a few famous cases of anecdotal veridical evidence:

The Case of Pam Reynolds:
In order to remove a life threatening aneurysm deep in her brain, Pam Reynolds underwent a rare surgical procedure called “Operation Standstill” in which the blood is drained from the body like oil from a car, stopping all brain, heart and organ activity. The body temperature is lowered to 60 degrees. While fully anesthesized, with sound-emitting earplugs, Pam’s ordeal began. Dr. Spetzler, the surgeon, was sawing into her skull when Pam suddenly heard the saw and began to observe the surgical procedure from a vantage point over his shoulder. She also heard what the nurses said to the doctors. Upon returning to consciousness, she was able to accurately describe the unique surgical instrument used and report the statements made by the nurses.20
A Report from a Dutch Nurse:
“During night shift an ambulance brings in a 44-year old cyanotic, comatose man into the coronary care unit… When we go to intubate the patient, he turns out to have dentures in his mouth. I remove these upper dentures and put them onto the ‘crash cart.’ [..] Only after more than a week do I meet again with the patient, who is by now back on the cardiac ward. The moment he sees me he says: ‘O, that nurse knows where my dentures are.’ I am very surprised. Then he elucidates: ‘You were there when I was brought into hospital and you took my dentures out of my mouth and put them onto that cart, it had all these bottles on it and there was this sliding drawer underneath, and there you put my teeth.’.”21
Maria’s Shoe
Kimberly Clark Sharp (1995) was a social worker in Harborview Hospital in Seattle when Maria was brought in unconscious from cardiac arrest. Sharp visited her the following day in a hospital room, at which point Maria described leaving her body and floating above the hospital. Desperate to prove that she had in fact left her body and was not crazy, she described seeing a worn dark blue tennis shoe on the ledge outside a window on the far side of the hospital. Not believing her but wanting to help, Sharp checked the ledge by pressing her face against the sealed windows and found a shoe that perfectly matched the details Maria had related.22
Visual Perception in the Blind
Dr. Kenneth Ring describes 21 cases of visual perception in the blind during their near-death experiences in his book Mindsight: Near-Death and Out-of-Body Experiences in the Blind.23


This is just the tip of the tip of the tip of the evidence.

 

[LeannaBard]

"This is just the tip of the tip of the tip of the evidence."
First, I should adress that none of those qualify as evidence. They are claims, including pieces of data. They don't point to one conclusion or the other. But regarding the lack of scientific explainations:

"Near-death experiences (NDEs) have been described by many as proof of the afterlife - intense white light, hallucinations of dead loved ones talking to them, angels and so on. Now, a slightly less romantic but more scientifically sound explanation has emerged - the brain experiences a surge of activity shortly before death.
The changes, which were observed in rats may go a long way to explaining the after effects. Even after the animals' hearts stopped beating and no blood was reaching their brains, they appeared to show signs of conscious perception, said the scientists.
The study is the first to take a systematic look at the neurophysiological state of the dying brain after a cardiac arrest." (Huffington Post)

But to answer your question, no, I am not claiming that all unexplained experiences are ulitimately false. They are simply unexplained. What I am claiming is that the lack of current explanation is not evidence that there is any supernatural occurence either. You don't know any more than I do what caused the experience. There is not a dichotomy of "either science has an explanation, or the experience was paranormal." But, in the past, there has been a trend of scientific explanation replacing superstition and supernatural belifs. Based on the trend, I believe it's likely that these examples will follow. I know of no instance where there has ever been a varified supernatural experience. I believe that trend will continue as well. That is the best hypothesis I can make beased on the data available to me at the time. There is not a shred of evidence that pints me toward the conclusion that there is a god.

Even if those things did turn out to be some sort of "supernatural" (though once we discovered whatever mechanism was responsible, it would no longer be called supernatual. We would just know about a new aspect of nature) it still wouldn't be evidence that the universe has a creator. Lets get to the evidence for the creator part.

 

[George-ananda]

"This is just the tip of the tip of the tip of the evidence."
First, I should adress that none of those qualify as evidence. They are claims, including pieces of data. They don't point to one conclusion or the other. But regarding the lack of scientific explainations:

"Near-death experiences (NDEs) have been described by many as proof of the afterlife - intense white light, hallucinations of dead loved ones talking to them, angels and so on. Now, a slightly less romantic but more scientifically sound explanation has emerged - the brain experiences a surge of activity shortly before death.
The changes, which were observed in rats may go a long way to explaining the after effects. Even after the animals' hearts stopped beating and no blood was reaching their brains, they appeared to show signs of conscious perception, said the scientists.
The study is the first to take a systematic look at the neurophysiological state of the dying brain after a cardiac arrest." (Huffington Post)

Those of us interested in this phenomena are already aware of these hypotheses. But you missed the gist of the veridical Near Death Experience examples. They contain factual knowledge that could not have reasonably been known through normal channels. For example, a person seeing his relatives in another room of the hospital and describing factual details of what he saw later. And, perhaps even more spectacularly, people who became blind later in life having verifiable visual information about their experience. There is a huge number of such cases that all follow a like pattern. Now, zero of the scientific theories you mention can account for this phenomena. That was the gist of my previous post.

But to answer your question, no, I am not claiming that all unexplained experiences are ulitimately false. They are simply unexplained.

If they happened and are unexplained then isn't it the nature of a scientific mind to consider hypotheses that can explain? A scientific mind does not say 'it's unexplained' and that's that.

What I am claiming is that the lack of current explanation is not evidence that there is any supernatural occurence either.

I argue that astral bodies and souls are natural as is everything. The term supernatural should actually not exist.

You don't know any more than I do what caused the experience.

This is where I must disagree. There are great ancient wisdom traditions of the east that can explain what and why these things occur in astonishing detail.

There is not a dichotomy of "either science has an explanation, or the experience was paranormal." But, in the past, there has been a trend of scientific explanation replacing superstition and supernatural belifs. Based on the trend, I believe it's likely that these examples will follow. I know of no instance where there has ever been a varified supernatural experience. I believe that trend will continue as well.

Ah, but every time science explains something, science expands its knowledge. I'm saying science someday will explain things we currently call paranormal, but it will expand to include things like astral bodies as part of nature.

That is the best hypothesis I can make beased on the data available to me at the time. There is not a shred of evidence that pints me toward the conclusion that there is a god.

Even if those things did turn out to be some sort of "supernatural" (though once we discovered whatever mechanism was responsible, it would no longer be called supernatual. We would just know about a new aspect of nature) it still wouldn't be evidence that the universe has a creator. Lets get to the evidence for the creator part.

OK, lets move on to the creator part. I'm going to argue that the teachings of the advanced ancient (Hindu) wisdom traditions provide the most sophisticated and accurate worldview that has been presented to man. At the very heart of that tradition is the understanding that this is all One/God/Brahman. And the experience of the One/God/Brahman is at the heart of the transcendental experiences of mystics of many traditions. They are all seeing and saying the same things.

 

[LeannaBard]

Those of us interested in this phenomena are already aware of these hypotheses. But you missed the gist of the veridical Near Death Experience examples. They contain factual knowledge that could not have reasonably been known through normal channels. For example, a person seeing his relatives in another room of the hospital and describing factual details of what he saw later. And, perhaps even more spectacularly, people who became blind later in life having verifiable visual information about their experience. There is a huge number of such cases that all follow a like pattern. Now, zero of the scientific theories you mention can account for this phenomena. That was the gist of my previous post.

Well those types of experiencesremain unexplained. There are possible explanations, but I would have to consider them unverified.

If they happened and are unexplained then isn't it the nature of a scientific mind to consider hypotheses that can explain? A scientific mind does not say 'it's unexplained' and that's that.

I'm not suggesting that you should not continue to try and reach a conclusion. But it is highly unscientific to use the lack of explanation as an excuse to jump to the conclusion that the supernatural is involved.

This is where I must disagree. There are great ancient wisdom traditions of the east that can explain what and why these things occur in astonishing detail.

Disagree if you must, but I maintain that the explanations of eastern traditions are unverified and untrustworthy. I would require more demonstrable support before accepting the explanation.

Ah, but every time science explains something, science expands its knowledge. I'm saying science someday will explain things we currently call paranormal, but it will expand to include things like astral bodies as part of nature.

perhaps that will be the case. It remains to be seen.

OK, lets move on to the creator part. I'm going to argue that the teachings of the advanced ancient (Hindu) wisdom traditions provide the most sophisticated and accurate worldview that has been presented to man. At the very heart of that tradition is the understanding that this is all One/God/Brahman. And the experience of the One/God/Brahman is at the heart of the transcendental experiences of mystics of many traditions. They are all seeing and saying the same things.

Please go on.

 

[George-ananda]

There are possible explanations, but I would have to consider them unverified.

What would constitute 'verification'? When it gets right down to it you'll probably see that what you mean is experimental proof by physical science. First, if that was the case there would be nothing to debate. Secondly, these things happen spontaneously and unpredictably so they really cannot be studied the way physical studies are done on inanimate objects. Thirdly, does current science have ways of studying things outside of our physical three-dimensional world; these events are claimed to happen outside of our three-dimensional world (4th?, 5th? dimensions).

I'm not suggesting that you should not continue to try and reach a conclusion. But it is highly unscientific to use the lack of explanation as an excuse to jump to the conclusion that the supernatural is involved.

Who's jumping to the 'supernatural'? I am saying these things are 'natural' and that modern physical science has an incomplete understanding of all that is natural.

Please go on.

If there was scientifically verifiable proof or disproof of God then there would be nothing to debate. Everybody knows that. So what we must do is accept the most reasonable hypothesis presented to us. I am saying that restricting our beliefs and concerns to just what physical science can know for certain impoverishes the human intellect. We should intelligently consider teachings from other human wisdom traditions in forming our worldview.

And I maintain that eastern (Hindu) wisdom tradition has more explanatory power in understanding profound and deeper human experiences than the 'modern physical science' system. Not only is the eastern system better at explaining the deeper 'out of the ordinary' experiences of man, but it is a complete system of knowledge refined by great seers and minds for centuries. And at the absolute highest level of this system is the position that this is all One/God/Brahman.

For these reasons I maintain that belief in the likelihood of God is the most reasonable position we can take.

 

[LeannaBard]

If there was scientifically verifiable proof or disproof of God then there would be nothing to debate. Everybody knows that. So what we must do is accept the most reasonable hypothesis presented to us. I am saying that restricting our beliefs and concerns to just what physical science can know for certain impoverishes the human intellect. We should intelligently consider teachings from other human wisdom traditions in forming our worldview.

And I maintain that eastern (Hindu) wisdom tradition has more explanatory power in understanding profound and deeper human experiences than the 'modern physical science' system. Not only is the eastern system better at explaining the deeper 'out of the ordinary' experiences of man, but it is a complete system of knowledge refined by great seers and minds for centuries. And at the absolute highest level of this system is the position that this is all One/God/Brahman.

For these reasons I maintain that belief in the likelihood of God is the most reasonable position we can take.

And I maintain that the conclusion and teachings of Eastern religion are not the most reasonable. That wasn't much of a debate. You are just restating your position. Do you have any actual points to argue in favor of your position? Becusae I simply don't agree that believing that Brahman is everything is sensible or even close to the most reasonable position to hold.

 

[George-ananda]

And I maintain that the conclusion and teachings of Eastern religion are not the most reasonable. That wasn't much of a debate. You are just restating your position. Do you have any actual points to argue in favor of your position? Becuae I simply don't agree that believing that Brahman is everything is sensible or even close to the most reasonable positino to hold.

The purpose of a debate is not to convince the other person you are debating against. I know I'm not going to convince you. The purpose of a debate is to provide argumentation for a theoretically neutral audience to believe you hold the stronger position.

The subject of eastern religions is so incredibly vast I don't think we could ever end here if I talked about everything. How do I defend a whole school of thought in a reply post? If you want you can start with your strongest challenge to non-dual Hindu thought.

 

[George-ananda]

Continuation of previous post

Do you have any actual points to argue in favor of your position?

Yes, and I presented them.

It has an explanatory power for 'beyond the normal' human experiences far beyond any other thought system. It has been refined by many great thinkers, seers and sages for centuries down to a fine point. The ultimate Oneness of all has been the mystical experience of people of all traditions.