No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

From what I gathered [here and elsewhere] Snark’s belief is Panentheism, i.e.

Note the point re ‘absolute perfection’ and ‘relative perfection’ which I had been using and was condemned [purely due to ignorance] by many here.
In my case, absolute perfection is an impossibility.

The idea of God is based on beliefs and restricted to philosophical ideas, not concepts. Philosophical Ideas lack empirical elements, while concepts will include empirical elements.

News flash! Not every panentheist is a Hartshorne panentheist.

You’re still irrational and irrelevant, Prismatic.

Where did I say every every panentheist is a Hartshorne panentheist. Obviously there are forms which differ but the substance of ‘what is panentheism’ is the same for all.

Very interesting.

So my challenge is at the level of an entire paradigm shift.
It’s not about: beliefs, ideas, concretes, abstracts, thinking (belligerent atheists would love that one :wink:), correlation as verification, overtness, truth-statements
It is about: existence, love, spirituality, subtleties, being personal yet boundless, analogies, incomplete descriptors and conditioned interpretations

I don’t actually think like that, but yes please do be patient with me. I regard truth as an expression of perceived consistency of associated experiences in line with how the brain myelinates pathways that are stimulated most often. The term is imprecisely used, and I think that can be straightened out through philosophy, but it is necessarily relative. It can be understood as a concept, but it is far from going to solve all our problems because truth isn’t the only valid value according to natural selection. I am merely interested in what it can and can’t do, with no hopes or expectations.

Weird youtube vid btw. Honestly, I like the barren precipice. I love exploring the round room and contemplating corners - certain kinds of suffering are enjoyable. They are a necessary pre-cursor to satisfaction. The Buddhist notion of eliminating suffering only really applies to what the vid calls “unbearable” suffering. There are many bearable types that are even preferable. Discarding and abandoning comforts and suffering isn’t the only path to appreciating the infinite present, I actually ended up with something pretty similar to Buddhism in some ways simply through rational thought.

The prospect of attempting an entirely new approach seems strange and difficult. Seeing the world in terms of what I listed above instead of what I also listed above that doesn’t seem philosophical - would you recommend I re-evaluate my definition of philosophy? Or does God not fit in with philosophy?

Yes, do you? You didn’t have to mention God’s subsequent indifference to his supposed creation, Deism is also the belief in God but without any of the supernatural stuff - which is what I was implying about your equation of Him with existence. Existence can be used to encapsulate all that is natural without any association with religious doctrine - and I was saying that if that was all you meant by God, then why have 2 words when one is sufficient and the other is associated with extra baggage. I was not saying you were a Deist, I even immediately followed that comment with the alternative that you were a Theist - with the belief that God is existence “plus x”. But whether or not that is logically the case, I get the impression that this type of thought is not conducive to God-belief.

Haha, I like that phrase very much.

Its not quite that simple, and I have done extensive reviewing for over 20 years.
What is certain is that Shamanism preceded all other forms. All religion is a derivative of Shamanism.

The first Shamans became, by reputation, Gods.

It works the other way around just as powerfully. The parents are like the Titans to whom the child must rebel, finding “freedom”, i.e. psychological security. In such a case “faith in God” can represent the persons own matured conscience.
It kind of depends on the family.

In any case what is always real is faith. It is faith that drives people to work for God(s). Gods themselves don’t tend to be direct influences, not in the writings about them anyway. Invariably, the person to whom God is supposed to be talking does exactly the opposite of what God commands. I think this points to the struggle for conscience that religion represents.

The struggle to become aware of ones power to choose, the struggle with the enormous implications of a free act.

Im glad you went back with the DeLorean to verify that. I couldn’t get the Fluxcapacitor to work.

I still like the phrase. But I don’t see you have done the work to really make this claim and prove it.

I agree the Torah is relatively recent to human history, but these stories do date from several thousands of years back. I any at the very least since a few thousands of years, say 3 to 4 minimum, times, this notion has held sway.

But indeed Shamanism is at least 60.000 years old.

And indeed Buddhism in its valid forms is Shamanism.
Meaning among other things that to engage the Void, one must engage first oneself, and transmute all ones energies. There is no Buddhism without Chi Kung. Or rather, all Buddhism without Chi Kung is vanity in the senses both of laziness and fallacious self-admiration.

Shamanism is covered within animism and various primitive practices.
I believe the underlying substance of all religions is the existential crisis which is within shamanism and from day one of humans.
Not sure how you view ‘shamanism’ but there is no way the Abrahamic religions can reconcile with ‘shamanism’ in general.

I think evolutionary, in general the child is programmed [DNA wise] for freedom/independence to distance itself from the parents, i.e. genetic dispersals [exist within all living things] but at the same time the impulse for security is very embedded deeply, primal and strong in the mind. So evolutionary there are two opposite forces pulling within independent wannabe adult and thus cognitive dissonance. This is one point of the inherent existential crisis which generate cognitive dissonance and the belief in God is the most effective solution for the majority.

Agree I have not gone into details on this. This is a very complex subject. Note I have given one clue re the cognitive dissonance from embedded need for security while being programmed to distance from one’ source of established security.

This is the reason why many people reinforced theism, are born again or converted to theism during their later teens. It is quite easy for those who proselytize, all they need is to ask the vulnerable insecure [e.g. college students away from their secured nest], ‘are you saved?’ and this will trigger and invoke the existential crisis subliminal and compel that person to belief in a God.

I consider myself a near-expert on Buddhism. I am very confident Buddhism per se has nothing to do with Shamanism directly.
Shamanism and Buddhism deals with the same existential crisis but Buddhism’s principles, methods and approach is unique.

I’ve been through this so many times that repetition is worse than just boring. It’s downright irritating.

God is not an idea to be accepted or refuted; God is a force to be experienced. Of course this is “foolishness to the Greeks”!

Snark, I can see you have absolutely zero interest in explaining your beliefs in a communicable way to someone who believes differently, and far more interest in declaring aghast exasperation about how wasted your precious time is like a self-alleged veteran martyr prima donna. I have been nothing but polite, patient and engaged with you and you consistently meet this with insulting disrespect. You come across as a particularly unpleasant human being and I will do you the undeserved favour of terminating our conversation since this is clearly what you want, assuming you care in the slightest either way.

Ierrellus, perhaps you have the ability to explain this experience of God where others have failed?

I’ve managed to prise out the following criteria of “dos and don’ts” when trying to experience God:

How much do you agree with them?

I couldn’t disagree.

Silhouette:

I agree you have been nothing but polite, patient, and engaged, but I have zero interest explain my “beliefs” ad infinitum. For example, in regards to my last post, do you have any idea how many times that’s been asked that by someone who does not understand the difference between existence and things that have existence?

Ierrellus is right (I would only change the word “force” to “presence”). I am finally beginning to appreciate 1 Corinthians 2:14 and it’s many translations.

Didn’t you notice the ‘nic’ and its meaning?

The point is many of those with the highest degree of experiencing the force of God [at present] happened to be have mental issues, e.g. temporal epilepsy, schizophrenia and others.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIiIsDIkDtg[/youtube]

or have a serious brain damage, note Jill Bolte a neuroscientist,

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyyjU8fzEYU[/youtube]

There are tons of research on this point. They made one wonder those who claimed to be prophet or messenger of a God thousands of years ago [no psychiatry to vet them] suffered similar mental problems.

Know what a “Galileo” is?

Odd that you would post the video with Jill Taylor as that supports what I’ve been saying. Silhouette can learn from it. Also, ever hear of Eban Alexander? Why not mention the countless NDE’s, some of which are confirmed as having seen things that they could not have possibly seen from their position? What you describe, Prismatic, is exactly what one should expect if the brain acts like a biological receiver amplifier.

NDE’s are often used to support life thereafter [sham anyway] and not to directly support the existence of a God.

This is too far fetched. I will not bother until there is sound empirical evidence of the transmitter.

Yours is a problem of Confirmation Bias. You merely assumed God exists [compelled psychologically] and from there try to find and justify whatever evidences you think is likely to be related to the existence of a God.

There are countless claims by various individuals who experienced the force of a ‘God’.
The fact is such experiences are traceable to various root causes, i.e. brain damage, mental problems, drugs, stress, chemical, hallucinogens, etc.
Whilst no one would wish to repeat the experiences based on certain mental illness or brain damage, the experiences of God can be repeated by drugs, hallucinogens, & meditation techniques.

If God exists and is all powerful, why do God only wait for the above [other than meditation] very dangerous elements to transmit his force on those ‘victims’? There are those who experienced God who ordered them to kill people.

The fact that the ‘experiences of God’ can be repeated by drugs, hallucinogens, meditation and other empirically based methods [brain stimulation], indicate the idea of God is more likely to be psychological rather than a God really exists as real within an empirical-rational reality or whatever reality theists are claiming.

Note God Helmet;
The term God Helmet refers to a controversial experimental apparatus in neurotheology. The apparatus, placed on the head of an experimental subject, stimulates the brain with magnetic fields. Persinger reports that at least 80 percent of his participants experience a presence beside them in the room, which they variously say feels like God or someone they knew who had died.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YPOTaUyvA0[/youtube]

The presence of God experienced is not the product of some mechanical device. It is a bathing in a warm glow of Presence wherein all that is self and other knows belonging. Ideas divide people; the God experience unites them.

The truth is the ‘presence of God experienced’ can be tested and repeated reasonably with a mechanical device.
Therefore if many people are experiencing ‘God’ when stimulated [by human experimenters] in certain parts of their brain, then the experience of ‘God’ is man made and not initiated by any real God.

The ‘presence of God experienced’ can also be induced by drugs & hallucinogens, repeatedly, thus this ‘presence of God experienced’ is human made.

In the case of the above video, the boy suffered from temporal epilepsy and feel he is God but such experience disappeared after he was treated. Many patients prefer to take medicine to make their God-experience disappear.

I have personally experienced ‘God consciousness’ while doing meditations in the past as being a panentheist. I still experience such intermittently but now I know, it was and is only a psychological and neural effect.

There is no convincing proofs God exists as real.

So it is most likely the idealized idea of God in humans are due to psychological reasons. It is just that for the majority of theists, the psychological reasons are milder.

Note the video re Jill Bolte who had such an experience due to a very serious stroke.
What is so interesting with Jill Bolte is she is a neuroscientist and thus [she is objective on such an experience] knew what was really going on [the neural processes and damage] in her mind while she experienced the so-called presence of ‘God’. [she did not identify with God but something like Nirvana]

Haha :laughing:
Gyahd, what a character. :icon-rolleyes:

Yes, :laughing: :laughing: I have to laugh at my previous beliefs that I had experienced ‘god-consciousness’.
I am now wiser when others claimed they had experiences of God which are actually effects of certain brain and neural processes that can be reasonably repeated with drugs, hallucinogens, meditations, and the likes.

But your :laughing: above is due to ignorance due to a lack of width and depth in philosophical and related knowledge relevant to this OP.

I’d estimate Prismatic has to be about 200 years old to have all the expertise, experience and years of study he claims to have behind him.

Well, duh. I certainly hope so.