You ever thought about how difficult the spiritual can be to demonstrate or provide evidence for?

[Lorgar-Aurelian]

To someone who likes evidence of something before he or she believes in something it's almost impossible to justify spiritual experience within their own life.

Take Jesus for instance, give him all his miracles, give him all his works from the gospel and so on. Would this prove the god he spoke of is real? No it wouldn't. AT best it would give us a reason to acknowledge that humans can do some weird **** given the power to do so.

Does someone having an experience with "God" or "the gods" provide any real good reason to believe in God or the gods? Once again no, it can all be explained away fairly easily.

Speaking personally I would love to have a connection to some sort of god. I have looked for the spiritual for a very long time hoping to find some evidence but I always come up empty handed. AT a certain point it always goes back to just having faith. But you can have faith in just about anything.

People have faith of one kind or another in numerous things that is true. They have faith that a airplane won't suddenly crash into their house today. Is it possible it would happen? Sure but when you look at the odds it's rather unlikely so you don't have faith the otherway around without good reason.

You can have faith in god or gods but you need at least some reason to have that faith. You need a reason to take that first step, you need a reason that actually makes sense otherwise you are just having faith in something because it feels good. You don't normally take people seriously(or at least shouldn't) when they say "God wrote it, I believe it end of discussion."

Is there any evidence to lead to god's existence? is there anything at all that would lead an empiricist to take the notion of the spiritual seriously?

 

[George-ananda]

I think for many the problem starts from our cultural conception of God as an external being separate from us. One can show all kind of wonders and argumentation all day but how do you tie that back to anything specific?

I also think the good news is that we do not need to find any external entity at all as it can be found internally through quieting of the mind and in brotherly love and peace. The ultimate nature of consciousness behind the stirrings of the mind is God/Brahman and we are that.

As for empiricism, there may not be the right kind of evidence to support an external God, but the paranormal/spiritual experiences of man can lead an empiricist to a spiritual path. I would not believe in God/Brahman myself if there was not a starting point of signs (paranormal/spiritual events).

 

[Twilight Hue]

To someone who likes evidence of something before he or she believes in something it's almost impossible to justify spiritual experience within their own life.

Take Jesus for instance, give him all his miracles, give him all his works from the gospel and so on. Would this prove the god he spoke of is real? No it wouldn't. AT best it would give us a reason to acknowledge that humans can do some weird **** given the power to do so.

Does someone having an experience with "God" or "the gods" provide any real good reason to believe in God or the gods? Once again no, it can all be explained away fairly easily.

Speaking personally I would love to have a connection to some sort of god. I have looked for the spiritual for a very long time hoping to find some evidence but I always come up empty handed. AT a certain point it always goes back to just having faith. But you can have faith in just about anything.

People have faith of one kind or another in numerous things that is true. They have faith that a airplane won't suddenly crash into their house today. Is it possible it would happen? Sure but when you look at the odds it's rather unlikely so you don't have faith the otherway around without good reason.

You can have faith in god or gods but you need at least some reason to have that faith. You need a reason to take that first step, you need a reason that actually makes sense otherwise you are just having faith in something because it feels good. You don't normally take people seriously(or at least shouldn't) when they say "God wrote it, I believe it end of discussion."

Is there any evidence to lead to god's existence? is there anything at all that would lead an empiricist to take the notion of the spiritual seriously?

Wonder if it's anything like New York State of Mind?

Might as well put the kettle on.

 

[Nous]

is there anything at all that would lead an empiricist to take the notion of the spiritual seriously?

What is "the notion of the spiritual"? It doesn't seem to be articulated in the OP. Define it.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

To someone who likes evidence of something before he or she believes in something it's almost impossible to justify spiritual experience within their own life.

Take Jesus for instance, give him all his miracles, give him all his works from the gospel and so on. Would this prove the god he spoke of is real? No it wouldn't. AT best it would give us a reason to acknowledge that humans can do some weird **** given the power to do so.

Does someone having an experience with "God" or "the gods" provide any real good reason to believe in God or the gods? Once again no, it can all be explained away fairly easily.

Speaking personally I would love to have a connection to some sort of god. I have looked for the spiritual for a very long time hoping to find some evidence but I always come up empty handed. AT a certain point it always goes back to just having faith. But you can have faith in just about anything.

People have faith of one kind or another in numerous things that is true. They have faith that a airplane won't suddenly crash into their house today. Is it possible it would happen? Sure but when you look at the odds it's rather unlikely so you don't have faith the otherway around without good reason.

You can have faith in god or gods but you need at least some reason to have that faith. You need a reason to take that first step, you need a reason that actually makes sense otherwise you are just having faith in something because it feels good. You don't normally take people seriously(or at least shouldn't) when they say "God wrote it, I believe it end of discussion."

Is there any evidence to lead to god's existence? is there anything at all that would lead an empiricist to take the notion of the spiritual seriously?

Short answer: No.

Spirituality (abrahamic translation) dont work like that. If god could be proven, what are you expecting to see? Jews are told not to describe god for any description would not fit gods authority. Anything written can be miscued. Actually, christians are the only ones I know that depict god as a physical thing (or being in this case).

So, Id say try not to define god the way mainsteam wants you to see him. Most people I know when it gets down to it say god is a spirit (some take that as a spark, consciousness, energy, whatever) that "creates life."

Big point: that or who which creates life is not the definition of god. If it were, creation would speak of a creator.

There is no evidence for god. All religions say he is spirit, invisible, a mythology, personification, mind, everything, person..

But no distinct being.

Try to find god without hearing human reflections of him. Thats like trying to find space in an empty room.

 

[Nous]

Try to find god without hearing human reflections of him. Thats like trying to find space in an empty room.

Beautiful.

(But I suspect few people will take up that challenge. Few people seem to do so.)

 

[Robert Landbeck]

To someone who likes evidence of something before he or she believes in something it's almost impossible to justify spiritual experience within their own life.

Take Jesus for instance, give him all his miracles, give him all his works from the gospel and so on. Would this prove the god he spoke of is real? No it wouldn't. AT best it would give us a reason to acknowledge that humans can do some weird **** given the power to do so.

Does someone having an experience with "God" or "the gods" provide any real good reason to believe in God or the gods? Once again no, it can all be explained away fairly easily.

Speaking personally I would love to have a connection to some sort of god. I have looked for the spiritual for a very long time hoping to find some evidence but I always come up empty handed. AT a certain point it always goes back to just having faith. But you can have faith in just about anything.

People have faith of one kind or another in numerous things that is true. They have faith that a airplane won't suddenly crash into their house today. Is it possible it would happen? Sure but when you look at the odds it's rather unlikely so you don't have faith the otherway around without good reason.

You can have faith in god or gods but you need at least some reason to have that faith. You need a reason to take that first step, you need a reason that actually makes sense otherwise you are just having faith in something because it feels good. You don't normally take people seriously(or at least shouldn't) when they say "God wrote it, I believe it end of discussion."

Is there any evidence to lead to god's existence? is there anything at all that would lead an empiricist to take the notion of the spiritual seriously?

As someone who also expects "evidence of something before he or she believes in something" conclusively, just for the record, and for "anyone [who would] love to have a connection to some sort of God." I'm TESTING right now the first wholly new interpretation for two thousand years of the moral teaching of Jesus where the justification of faith is defined as the Promise [Word] of a direct confirmation by that reality we call God.

"a direct individual intervention into the natural world by omnipotent power that confirms divine will, law, command and covenant, which at the same time, realigns our mortal moral compass with the Divine, "correcting human nature by a change in natural law, altering biology, consciousness and human ethical perception beyond all natural evolutionary boundaries." Thus is a man 'created' in the image and likeness of his Creator."

Trials have already started and are open to all. The implications are mind boggling! Nothing short of an intellectual, moral and religious revolution is getting under way. To test or not to test, that is the question? More info at The Final Freedoms

 

[DrTCH]

A couple of initial remarks:

Why begin with the presumption that spirituality lies with a personal (or even the Abrahamic) god? There are many other possibilities.

Please, friends, consider that scripture, at best, is a collection of allegorical/mythic content (perhaps with SOME value) . At worst, it is nothing but the stuff of fairy tales.

Please also consider that one could argue that the "good stuff, the "core" of most religions is the mystical side of any given tradition, while the dogma-doctrine is like the "leavings from the dinner table," and probably not possessing much real merit.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Is there any evidence to lead to god's existence? is there anything at all that would lead an empiricist to take the notion of the spiritual seriously?

Sure. Change your perception of what type of evidence is valid. It's not instantaneous, but, over time, anyone can actually modify the structure of their mind and neural pathways to see things differently. This is the basis of cognitive behavioral therapy. In essence, you need to gradually brainwash yourself into a new perceptual reality.

Via this method, even the staunchest rationalist and skeptic could eventually become more fantasy/belief-minded, if they really wanted to, and actively made a habit of altering their assumptions, thoughts, and conclusions.

Of course, barring this type of change, there is no objective/empirical evidence which would lead a rationally-minded empiricist to believe in either gods, spirits, or anything else of that ilk.

 

[Quintessence]

To someone who likes evidence of something before he or she believes in something it's almost impossible to justify spiritual experience within their own life.

Are you telling us that you do not trust yourself? You don't trust yourself to evaluate and assess your own experiences in a way that is meaningful and beneficial to you and your life?

That is what this sounds like to me.

Does someone having an experience with "God" or "the gods" provide any real good reason to believe in God or the gods? Once again no, it can all be explained away fairly easily.

Why do you tell yourself that? You are the storyteller here. You get to pick what the answer is. Why did you pick "I am going to explain all this stuff away" or the "bah, humbug!" approach when you express later on in this post that you want to develop those connections? It sounds like you are getting in your own way by putting limitations on the stories you let yourself tell. Identify those limits and get rid of them. Answer the question "yes, of course it does!" and see where that story takes you. But if you can't get rid of the limitations holding back the course of your own desired plot line, you won't get the narrative to take off in the direction you want it to.

Is there any evidence to lead to god's existence? is there anything at all that would lead an empiricist to take the notion of the spiritual seriously?

It seems one of those limitations you are putting on your narrative is this thing is you call "evidence." Why do you make that demand? What if that isn't the point? Can't your personal experiences be sufficient? Maybe it circles back to that thing about trusting in yourself?

You get to decide what the gods are for you. Nobody else writes that story for you. Sounds to me like you already have your gods. You're just not calling them that yet. Maybe you never will. But maybe as an experiment, set up a small shrine in a room dedicated to the Spirit of Evidence. Sounds like you really honor that god, so why not make it official? Start developing more of a relationship with Evidence and how you conceptualize it. Maybe find some symbols to represent it. It's fun!

 

[dgirl1986]

I think about it all the time. There have been studies I believe, but I am not sure that any found evidence.

 

[DrTCH]

Why begin with the presumption that spirituality lies with a personal (or even the Abrahamic) god? There are many other possibilities.

Please, friends, consider that scripture, at best, is a collection of allegorical/mythic content (perhaps with SOME value) . At worst, it is nothing but the stuff of fairy tales, and lies.

Please also consider that one could argue that the "good stuff, the "core" of most religions is the mystical side of any given tradition, while the dogma-doctrine (and the entire hierarchical structure and apostolic lineage) is like the "leavings from the dinner table," with minimal value, and often employed to bludgeon the opposition into conformity.

Now, Christianity has its mystical tradition, and probably Jesus-Joshua had this in mind when he spoke of "Ye must be born again!!" Yet, in many churches, this tranformation has shifted from a kind of inner rebirth, cleansing and self-realization, to somethng else...personified by the hardened, brainwashed prosyletizer, stuck in dogma, very like the rigid and regimented Communist Party propagandist spouting the "Party Line!!" Authenic religious experience is not rigid and dogmatic, but fluid and alive (and defies intellectual analysis and containment).

 

[DrTCH]

Please delete my earlier message!!

 

[Lucida Sidera]

I agree with Hume that what we believe has not to be explained, but has to be seen, or, in other words, has to be a product of experience - has to be habit. The habit of thinking the Moon shall appear at night because She always did, the habit of believing in ourselves, in our feelings, in every simple thing.

Usually in religions people don't have a direct experience of the Gods/Divinities, and that's what makes Philosophy so much more appealing - because in Philosophy, anyone can have the experience of it's highest summits.

In religions the contact with Gods is usually made by the Priests. These are seen nowadays usually as figures of institutional power, but it's not this way in a religion, let's say, origin. Priests prove the existence of the Divinities everytime by saying and doing things that would be impossible without Them.

If a person wants to totally believe in Gods, I think the way is learning to have contact with Them - but this path is not always promised as so open as the gates of knowledge, science, philosophy - or having contact with a person that has contact with Them.

For a non-believer, this would not really be an experience, but a wrong interpretation of facts. For who believes, it's as simple as any other habit.

 

[syo]

... Is there any evidence to lead to god's existence? is there anything at all that would lead an empiricist to take the notion of the spiritual seriously?

god is the intelligent creator.

 

[Tomyris]

The fact that the universe has resolution limits should give pause to any rationalist and perhaps a creepy chill, but instead they cloaked their God in the name "computer program" and carried on making the sacred into the profane. I would be very, very nervous to be an atheist these days, as we start to bump up against the limits of the physical and find out it might not be so real after all. Perhaps the end of the age comes when reason destroys itself by finding the Almighty...

 

[pearl]

You ever thought about how difficult the spiritual can be to demonstrate or provide evidence for?

We have neglected the Poets in favor of the material, the tangible in defining our lives.