Reality of gods vs reality of experience

[thalassa]

Re: Reality of gods vs reality of experience

Ah. Ok I can play.

*steps up to mic
'I never met a god'


am I wrong?

Then you can be Party D: I have never met a soul eating horror. No empirical evidence supports the exisetence of soul eating horrors. Therefore, I'm pretty certain there is no such thing as a soul eating horror and that there is another, rational, explaination for why billions of people, for thousands of years, think that they have met soul eating horrors.


I get to be B, and I think Rae'ya is C...

I can also see a potential for a Party E: I have never met a soul eating horror and no empirical evidence supports the exisetence of soul eating horrors. However, billions of people, for thousands of years have claimed experience of soul eating horrors. There seem to be many reasons why people might be experiencing soul eating horrors, including the possibility that they might actually exist. Until there is actual evidence of a soul eating horror or I have a personal experience of a soul eating horror, I will be openminded. (which would be someone that is truly agnostic)

And IRL, there's Party F: I have never met a soul eating horror, but I was raised to believe that they existed. I know lots of people--family, friends, teachers, doctors, lawyers, the postman--that say they have had personal experiences with soul eating horrors...some of them on a daily basis! Soul eating horrors are real, run for your lives!!!

And (also IRL) Party G: I have never met a soul eating horror, but I was raised to believe that they existed. I know lots of people--family, friends, teachers, doctors, lawyers, the postman--that say they have had personal experiences with soul eating horrors...some of them on a daily basis! But there's really no actual evidence of soul eating horrors... There seem to be many reasons why people might be experiencing soul eating horrors, including the possibility that they might actually exist. I have this incredibly rich social network and support system built upon people believing in soul eatin horrors, and I really appreciate and respect...so I'll go along with it because I think they do a lot of good as a group.

[Munin-Hugin]

Re: Reality of gods vs reality of experience

The interesting thing is that while science cannot definitively disprove religion, religion can difinitively disprove science. A s ientist can show evidence from the fossil record, have you peer into a microscope, show the formulae used for carbon dating, and any number of other tools used for solid truth. One could say that because it is a step by step process that uses repeatedly verified evidence that it is a concrete and unrefutable fact. Yet, those very unbending processes are it's exact downfall in the face of belief. A devout man can easily wave it all away by stating "you only see it like that because that is how God has designed it. It is to test your faith that such things are presented."

My reality is not your reality is not her reality. Even science proves that. I can look at a color and see "blue" and call it "blue", but you can look at the same color and see "green" but you have been raised and taught that what you see is "blue", so that's what you call it. My "blue" is not your "blue" but when we talk about "blue" we can talk about it because while it's not the same, we have a shared experience of "blue". Now, just replace "blue" with "god" or "gods".

[Azvanna]

Re: Reality of gods vs reality of experience

Ah. Ok I can play.

*steps up to mic
'I never met a god'


am I wrong?

I have also never physically met a god. However, I think I've received visions and also have come to identify the 'voice' of God in varying subtle ways. I've experienced meetings small and large where we are so in tune that much of what we do seems to be linked by one energy. But it's all objective - meaning I have never physically touched God or held a conversation whereby someone else can hear word-for-word what is being said. I've never had a photo with God. I've never had God eat half my sandwich. When someone of a scientific mind asks me how I know of the existence of God, I have to say that I don't know it, I just sense it. And that is why when I read this:

The Gods are experienced by people in the sense that she experiences you (a physical person), not in the sense that she experiences Tinker Bell.

Brackets mine.

I'm genuinely interested to know the experiences you personally have had to lead you to this statement?

[DragonsFriend]

Re: Reality of gods vs reality of experience

I don't believe that London and Paris exist. I have never seen them and I have never seen hard evidence that they do exist. I know people who say they have been there and believe they exist but they don't have any hard evidence. I do believe in Seattle. I was there for 59 years. I have been to Denver so I know it exists and I have been to many other places so I know they exist.

The above argument is the same one that we are having about Deity. I have invoked deity. I have met deity face to face. I know the deity that I met is real. The Universal Law of Knowledge has two parts; Part a) reads , "you can only know what you experience." and the second part reads, "If you know something you can affect change to it."

Most people will never meet their deities in this life. They live with faith and acceptance. I can accept that London and Paris exist but I can't "know" they exist until I have been there. I can accept that other gods exist even though I can't know they exist until I meet them. As Human beings we choose to accept a lot of facts that we don't know to be true just because we choose to accept the source that informs us as accurate.

[Briton]

Re: Reality of gods vs reality of experience

I am willing to accept the possibility that deities exist, and I don't ever mock those who do because a) I used to b) my beliefs are no more credible to an outsider. I personally have no experience of any and I think some religions are more than likely fictitious and some completely (Scientology).

I admit it is impossible to prove a negative (this deity does not exist) but if attempts to contact are futile and the religious beliefs state nobody is rejected then my only conclusion to draw from this paradox is that it is fals. Furthermore not all gods can exist, for the existence of some preclude many monotheistic religions from being true.

I'm not sure what camp that puts me in, but for now I will take what I am given. I do believe it's possible that multiple religions are 'right' and that there is enough space for Buddhists to go where they are meant to go and Heathens to go where they are meant to go.

[DragonsFriend]

Re: Reality of gods vs reality of experience

All gods can exist if you don't try to place limits upon them and add a belief that all gods could exist as attributes of one or even a few gods.

[Medusa]

Re: Reality of gods vs reality of experience

I don't believe that London and Paris exist. I have never seen them and I have never seen hard evidence that they do exist. I know people who say they have been there and believe they exist but they don't have any hard evidence. I do believe in Seattle. I was there for 59 years. I have been to Denver so I know it exists and I have been to many other places so I know they exist.

The above argument is the same one that we are having about Deity. I have invoked deity. I have met deity face to face. I know the deity that I met is real. The Universal Law of Knowledge has two parts; Part a) reads , "you can only know what you experience." and the second part reads, "If you know something you can affect change to it."

Most people will never meet their deities in this life. They live with faith and acceptance. I can accept that London and Paris exist but I can't "know" they exist until I have been there. I can accept that other gods exist even though I can't know they exist until I meet them. As Human beings we choose to accept a lot of facts that we don't know to be true just because we choose to accept the source that informs us as accurate.

So when I go to google maps and I see Paris. And I see people in Paris. And I see buildings in Paris. And I see signs that say 'hey, this is Paris'. Well that's different then saying I didn't see it so it doesn't exist. I can believe things that have been proven. And by proven I don't mean when someone says oh here's proof. Look at the sunset! (And yes people do this all the dang time). If you can't get the difference, I have a unicorn I can sell you.

[thalassa]

Re: Reality of gods vs reality of experience

I have a unicorn I can sell you.

Does it poop candy?

Because I'll worship that.

[monsno_leedra]

Re: Reality of gods vs reality of experience

Does it poop candy?

Because I'll worship that.

Nah that's the Easter Bunny that poops candy. He's happily at work on Easter Island right now though Carlos might be getting tired of pulling his egg sled now. I saw it on TV and the Net so it has to be real.

[Azvanna]

Re: Reality of gods vs reality of experience

I don't believe that London and Paris exist. I have never seen them and I have never seen hard evidence that they do exist. I know people who say they have been there and believe they exist but they don't have any hard evidence. I do believe in Seattle. I was there for 59 years. I have been to Denver so I know it exists and I have been to many other places so I know they exist.

The above argument is the same one that we are having about Deity. ... I can accept that London and Paris exist but I can't "know" they exist until I have been there. I can accept that other gods exist even though I can't know they exist until I meet them. As Human beings we choose to accept a lot of facts that we don't know to be true just because we choose to accept the source that informs us as accurate.

It's not really the same argument, and this is why:

So when I go to google maps and I see Paris. And I see people in Paris. And I see buildings in Paris. And I see signs that say 'hey, this is Paris'. Well that's different then saying I didn't see it so it doesn't exist. I can believe things that have been proven. And by proven I don't mean when someone says oh here's proof. Look at the sunset! (And yes people do this all the dang time). If you can't get the difference, I have a unicorn I can sell you.

I don't need no one
To tell me about God and truth
I can see the sunset
And I perceive :angel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_nImUzRv0w

What we've touched on and where our arguments differ is on the definition of reality. There's the philosophical sense of the word reality which relates to human perception and then there's the classic definition of reality relating to the five senses, which is less straight-forward then it would seem. Is the glass I'm holding real? Yes, because I can see it, I can touch it, I can taste it, I can hear it when I put it down, it smells like the last thing I drank. Is my God real? He is as real as market forces, the boundaries of London or Paris, laws, compassion. I can't sense God Himself with my 5 senses, but I can sense the effects of Him - or at least what I attribute to Him.

I liked Thalassa's word 'agency.' Many of us have had experiences that lead us to believe there is something that exists outside of our five senses. What we then do with these experiences is we try to make sense of them and we layer them into categories we already know about. Then we form a way of interacting with that experience to integrate it into our understanding of reality. Some of us become polytheists, some monotheists. Some have experiences to lead them to believe in magic, some don't. We feel there is something out there, but we can't really prove it with our five senses and this is why we have so many differing opinions on what 'it' is.

Getting back to that Live song, this is a good example of categorising. When I first heard that song, I thought he was singing about conventional faith, meaning the sunset and his daughter lead him to faith in deity. Listening to it again later in life, I realised he could be just as well singing about unconventional faith - the wonder of nature and his human relationships. We tend to categorise information into what we already know. This is why inquiry is so important. No matter how strong our attachments to the identity of our deities get, we must always be open to other possibilities or risk deceiving ourselves.

[anunitu]

Re: Reality of gods vs reality of experience

If I can talk and see dead people does that mean there is an afterlife,or am I having visions from a mental illness.or from using drugs. My perception applies only to my personal experience IF no one else sees these things except me. In a way this describes any religious experience,it is a personal vision. There are group visions,but that is another thing. The expression mass hypnosis is at times used to explain them,or mass delusion. hysteria also seems to be used for explanation. BUT,for an individual what is seen in vision is REAL for the person that is within the vision.

Bottom line is,real is in the experience of the believer,and belief is always a personal place for each person.

[magusphredde]

Re: Reality of gods vs reality of experience

I liked Thalassa's word 'agency.' Many of us have had experiences that lead us to believe there is something that exists outside of our five senses. What we then do with these experiences is we try to make sense of them and we layer them into categories we already know about. Then we form a way of interacting with that experience to integrate it into our understanding of reality. Some of us become polytheists, some monotheists. Some have experiences to lead them to believe in magic, some don't. We feel there is something out there, but we can't really prove it with our five senses and this is why we have so many differing opinions on what 'it' is ... ... ...
We tend to categorise information into what we already know. This is why inquiry is so important. No matter how strong our attachments to the identity of our deities get, we must always be open to other possibilities or risk deceiving ourselves.

I find this most interesting, and agreeable ... There are beliefs that do not allow for the possibility of being wrong or at least incomplete for someone ...

[DragonsFriend]

Re: Reality of gods vs reality of experience

I like the Google Maps arguement but really? I just half the things on the internet were true we would be living in either a war zone or a Utopia. In a world full of CGI and "Photoshopped imiges" that really just reinforces my point of view. What I was actually trying to express is that we accept a lot of things in life because we trust the sources. There is no proof offered or evidence provided. We just accept it because it is "common knowledge".

The world space administrations are calling the "vacuum energy" or "Quantum drive" rocket motors "impossible" yet they do work. A rocket motor that produces thrust without using any fuel? Yet China and the US have working designs and models that function. They supposedly use the random quantum particles that pop into and out of existence to make thrust. No fuel is required at all and they potentially could make a trip to Mars in less than three weeks, just like the new but slightly older Ion "impulse drive". NASA is very interested in using the quantum drive to power a "warp drive" ship. Once that hybrid technology is proven then it is "off to the stars" at "warp speed".

There were a lot of people very upset about an internet story that had an actor, "hunter" posed with a dead triceratops. When people were told that the animal had been extinct for 65 million years they were even more upset because the hunter had killed an obviously endangered species. We, as humans, accept some rather foolish concepts based on our emotions and state of mind. (or absence of mind)
we also accept that places we have never been do actually exist and that things we have never seen do happen. We accept them because they fit into our own normality mode. Those that don't fit are rejected unless an overwhelming amount of evidence is thrust at us by a trusted source. (If we don't trust the source we refuse to accept the evidence.) That is the way most people operate. If you have had a personal experience with deity or the effects caused by deity then your belief is all the evidence you need. If you have never had such an experience and don't want to believe there is no amount of evidence that will satisfy you.

You cannot argue faith against logic and you can't use logic against faith. The two are incompatible.

[Medusa]

Re: Reality of gods vs reality of experience

Paris and proof of Paris have been around quite a long time before the internet.

There is a difference in saying hey, there is this place called Paris and here is the proof of it on Earth and saying there is god and well..you will just have to take my word for it.

Are we really going to have to break it down smaller than that?

[B. de Corbin]

Re: Reality of gods vs reality of experience

He shouldda said "Atlantis."