I don't think this is similar to experiences with 'god' in any way. If we look at this logically we can assume that intelligent life can exist else where in the universe simply because it happened here. The laws of physics we can also assume will be universal from one side of the universe to another allowing equal chances for life to arise. So it's not a dramatic assumption to say that we are not the most technologically advanced life in the galaxy (or even the universe)... at least none more so than assuming we are in fact alone. If technological beings exist besides us, then as we have experienced on our own how technological advancement happens at a blinding rate. There are people still alive today who were born at a time when there was no such thing as powered flight, and now we are on the moon and sending machines to other planets. And this leads us towards further technological advancements which could transform the way we do space travel... perhaps even in ways that go beyond hypothesis. The only radical assumptions on our part is the limitations of technological advancement (whether they could travel to our planet from such long distances), and not about whether intelligent species are alive, because we are already examples that this is not so far-fetched. But with god, there is not even a starting foundation. I can understand where people are coming from if they believe in aliens. There are even many compelling cases of UFO's - but I don't generally believe that aliens are the most likely explanations, but rather human technology is probably the most likely explanation. There may be some extraordinary factors involved in an otherwise mundane situation that would leave even skeptics confused. In TV, Mulder always turns out to be right, but in real life Scully would have more success rate since there is still nothing beyond strange looking lights in the sky.
Please note that I do not say the average person can't have a spiritual experience. Everyone can. What I'm talking about is the kind of spiritual experience that has certain clarity and obviousness. Moreover, directions are given to strengthen a person's spirituality in order that such experiences are possible. It is not as if this is only possible for a select few. It is simply that the mass majority simply do not engage in these activities.
SnakeLord, Why are you so convinced that these lights were not from this earth? That experience is limited to the eyes, there is no other way you could have come to that conclusion. You may have developed (from such an experience) a belief in ET's, and that limited experience will only act as a kickstart. From there you would have to do more research on the subject matter, see if anyone else has experienced the same or similar thing, and so on. Because there is more to God than meets the eye. If we are talking about God in the scriptures, then the claim is that God is the original cause, and everything is born from his supreme will. So some how or other, everything we percieve, and we the perciever, must be "the experience". The thing is, how do we unravel it? Of course you can say there is no evidence that this is the case, then we come back to square one. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! There are people who claim to have experiences of the same nature. We weren't all given the same experience you had, but you still believe what you saw was not from this world, so there has to be something else that triggers the belief. But you still saw what you saw, that cannot be denied. What, now, would it take to convince you that these were not alien craft? These kinds of experiences are of no real consequence, other than a taster of what may become a serious interest, and it can be the same to alot of people who express belief in God They may have been alien craft, there may be some other explanation, there is no way of knowing. That is the reality. Jan.
Very cool. It sucks for it to have to remain in the 'unidentified' category, but it is an experience to compare to others.
I've got your answer. Your walking down the street, it's late at night, you can't wait to get home and go to bed. You see a man lying half dead near the sidewalk. There is a part of you that wants to help this man. Help him find shelter, safety, medical attention, etc. But if you ask someone to explain why this is a good idea you won't get a concrete answer. There is no good reason to behave in this irrational way. It is a sacrifice of your time and/or money. You must have faith that it is the right thing to do. And you were right, it is there all along, you have it or you don't. But if God showed up and said here I am! He would elminate the choice. And what's a sturdier foundation? People who have no choice and do what they must do. Or people who suffer for what they know is right?
Complete and utter BS. You're saying it is irrational to help someone get medical attention unless your god says it's ok? That's not an answer, that's the most ignorant thing one could say to the half-dead man near the sidewalk. "Let me ask my god if it's alright to help you, won't be but a minute."
Sorry it's been a while, I have been seriously busy.. Ken: No, most probably not. My association came simply from the question as to why we do not experience god on a daily basis, (under the impression that such a god exists). What gets to me is that (if it were the case), that I have seen alien ships that they possibly didn't want me to see, and yet can never see a being that does want me to see it, (or believe in it etc). beyondtimeandspace: Why must it be a university degree? To argue the point, this being wants us to know it, to know it exists, to love it, cherish it and worship it and yet makes it the hardest task known to man? Even the most ardent of worshippers say "believe" or "have faith"... I never hear them say "I know". The 'experience' should surely be there for all - regardless to the position they were born in or grew up in. god should be more politician-like. Jan: Ultimately it doesn't matter. You get on with your life, I get on with mine, (this is an attitude most religious people should learn and adopt). My level comes from simply seeing. Having a knowledge of aircraft, or military craft, of how things do or do not behave when in the sky, from the absolute lack of sound etc etc. It's simply impossible for me to explain to a satisfactory degree. The only way would be to show you but I can't. To what degree? I can get 3,000,000 pages from google if I look for those claiming to have seen UFO's. It's not what I'm asking really, (I'm sure it's my fault, relax). I'm asking why an experience isn't given to all - a clear undeniable experience that would leave no question as to existence. To be honest the question is moot. They were, they weren't.. it's entirely inconsequential at the end of the day. I can't do anything about it now so there you go. Lepore64: Not at all. Let's say for discussions sake that this god is yhwh, and he came down and said "yo man, here I am". While the choice to believe or not believe in this being might not be there I still wouldn't worship such a being under the basis that he's an immoral, man slaughtering asshole - there is the choice.
I've been investigating this issue pretty much ever since I can remember. I have come to the conclusion that this is not the right question to ask. Because the thing is, eventually, this: Even if God would give me an experience of Himself, how would I know this to be so? How would I distinguish between reality and delusion? How would I distinguish between reality and my wishful thinking? Even on an everyday basis, regarding simple everyday things, the line between reality and delusion is blurred - proof of this is that over and over again one makes new findings, realizes that some things work and some don't, what seemed certain turns out to be uncertain. So, in order to know God as God, in order to know an experience of God as an experience of God, one would have to be certain it wasn't a delusion or wishful thinking. But in order to have that sort of certainty, it would be necessary to not be subject to delusion in the first place. But if one wouldn't be subject to delusion in the first place, then there would also be no doubt about God or the experience of God. It seems that what makes us look for God will not lead us to find Him.
You're mistaken, that is not delusion. For example, Newtons laws work fine, however General Relativity is more precise. Newtons laws are therefore not a delusion. A belief in a flat earth is a delusion. The difference is science. One cannot be certain of those so-called experiences as divine simply on the premise that there are no former references. Surely, you've heard the old adage, "If it walks like a duck, it must be a duck." The problem with that statement is that one must be able to recognize and know a duck from former references. In other words, you must have seen a duck before. Have you seen a god before? The delusion comes from those who make assertions of their gods, the ones they have never seen, and those others who hold the assertions as beliefs and relate them to their so-called experiences.
I think many people do have personal experiances like you did, perhaps not as external as the one you had, but perhaps a inner truth that was obvious. I think it was you that wanted to see something "magical" as some kind of sign, from someone passed away? Or maybe it was someone else...I don't know. I've seen some strange things too that I can't explain, it's nice to have had these kind of experiances.
But here is the important part: We're not talking about a powerless entity, something that could not find a way to convince you instantly of its existence, power and need for attention. It needs, it craves that attention and yet can't go to any lengths to ensure that you know it exists. And yet I ask, why now? A few thousand years ago it was there in your face - sitting on mountain tops, handing down rules, having fights with the locals and getting all pissed off if you didn't have the snip. Now it is seemingly on vacation. ---- Wtf? Firstly: dead people are dead.. they don't do "signs". Secondly, no.. I was just having a quick smoke. It's like today, I saw a kingfisher, ( a rarity around here). I didn't look for it, I didn't 'want' to see it, I just did see it because it happened to be there. Same thing here.
The problem is that if this entity were to ensure that we know it exists, it would have to override our own will, it would have to override our scientific, experiential and philosophical/spiritual competence. It would have to accomplish that we'd lose the ability to doubt. - Consider that it happens over and over again that some people claim they are God, or that this or that event was an act of God. But how are we to know for sure, how are we to believe them? For myself, I know that I would sooner accept a million other explanations as more likely, and that nothing short of frying my brain could convince me that that person is in fact God. But with a fried brain ... well, there'd be no use. Losing the ability to doubt is tantamount to losing scientific, experiential and philosophical/spiritual competence. With that competence lost, we wouldn't be able to have knowledge, we'd just have a buzz of concepts at best. So, paradoxically, if God forced Himself on us, we'd lose the ability to know - or, we'd know Him, but all our other knowledge would be skewed. (Which is, actually, what might be happening anyway!) Don't get me wrong - I'm not a theist and I don't in any way support theism. I've been struggling with this crap for years, trying to find an explanation for various theistic claims and demands. An explanation that wouldn't leave me in a no-win situation. My current conclusion is that various theisms have mastered the art of the double bind to extremes. The average person who is not educated in informal logics, psychology, philosophy and related fields, usually isn't able to successfully deal with the sort of double binds posed by some theisms, so those double binds keep on nagging on one's mind, eventually often accomplishing that the person gives in and takes on the religion, or becomes neurotic or worse. (There is even evidence that a person exposed to double binds can develop schizophrenia - see Bateson's work.) Well, perhaps God is showing Himself to us. But if we prefer our competence over Him, we don't recognize Him as such. At the end of the day, the question is not whether God exists or not. The question is, In whose hands am I going to put my pursuit of happiness?
We're not on the same page here. I'm refering to the fact that our knowledge is incomplete - even though in each individual stage, we treat is if it were complete, or at least reliable enough. Later findings can refute previous ones, which makes previous ones appear like delusions. Perhaps "delusion" is too strong a word to use here, but in effect, incompletness, misunderstanding and mistakes are the same as delusions. Various forms of theism disagree. Some claim that we all know God - but that now we are either stained by sin and have forgotten that we know God; or even, that we deliberately lie about not knowing God. Those theisms call upon ignorance or a version of the liar's paradox here, and those can't be rationally countered. Those theisms have an unassailable argument here, have to give them that. Like I said above, some theisms have mastered the art of the double bind to extremes, and the problem of former reference is one of such double binds. Ie., to write it out in full: Everybody already knows God and is able to recognize Him. We have already been with Him before, He is our maker. Those who claim they don't know God are either stained by sin, or are deliberately lying. If they are stained by sin, they are doomed. If they lie, they are doomed. Either way, in this scheme of things, those who claim that they don't know God, lose. You do realize that in order for anyone to believe what you're saying here, they would have to take for granted that you are superior to the theists?
First off, what makes you think that being very skeptical is being rational? Being overly skeptical can prevent someone from finding the truth just as easily as not being skeptical enough. You saw ufos. Probably alien craft. The bible has ufos in it and they are associated with angels--Exodus 14:19. Seems to me like God revealed to you that His angels are real. What you saw proves some of the bible right there. You want a scientific explanation of ufo propulsion, then go to this website: http://www.maxpages.com/ufoexplantion Frontier physics; new energy form discovered in the 1960s, never made its way into the text books yet.
SnakeLord Obviously it does matter, which is why I am asking. What does this have to do with my question? So what knowledge do you have regarding crafts from other worlds? To see if any experience matches yours. I'm taking a deep breath right this very minute. Because "experience" is is understood through perspective, and understanding is based on sober intelligence. So you don't really have a point? You just wanted to show that God does not exist, because if he did we should (everyone of us) have had clear, undeniable experience. Way to go dude.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Jan.
That is certainly relevant when comparing religion to science, when science demonstrates religion as delusions. But, that is not the case with scientific findings. No, it is not the same at all. Delusions are beliefs held in the face of evidence to the contrary. That's religion. All cults are the same, they don't agree with other cults or even with their own dogmas. You'll find thousands of sects of Christians, for example. Muslims and Jews even have their own separate sects. It's utterly ridiculous. Who's god do you refer? I don't know your god and neither do millions of others, while you don't know their god. So, who loses here? No, they will all agree with me, that is, unless I refer to their specific cult. Then, they will think of me as their inferior.
Read again - I wrote out that specific double bind, and then qualified my statement as "in this scheme of things". You employ the same absolutist, double-bind strategies as many theists. Talking to you is as pointless as talking to them.
So what? You make the first assumption that we've all been with god, that he is our creator, then go on to qualify those assumptions with more assumptions. That isn't an argument, it's a red herring. Of course, I don't belong to the same cult as you, hence anything I say will be pointless to you, unless I agree with you and your cults views. What you consider 'absolutist, double bind strategies' are merely red herrings on your part.
Uh. Read again. I wrote out the double bind as presented by some religions. It's not my assumption that we've all been with God. I pointed out the double bind that some religions operate with, and the fact that double binds cannot be directly rationally resolved. By using double binds, many theists seemingly hold their "high ground". Well, I'll put it this way: I'm a constructivist, you're and objectivist. We'll never get along, even though we're both atheists.
My apologies on assuming you were a theist. Constructivism however, is a flawed fad and doesn't stand up when hard evidence is presented.
