Question..

[KennyJC]

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.

 

[beyondtimeandspace]

I can't help but chuckle when statements like this are made given that these sinners are the target audience. It's like making a product specifically to give bald people their hair back but then stipulating that bald people can't use it.

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.

 

[Jan Ardena]

SnakeLord,

From the west 4 big lights appeared and travelled slowly across the path of my vision. I looked at them, somewhat bemused and yet as a natural born skeptic trying to associate them to something I could relate to. An airplane perhaps - it is after all flying in the sky. When the 2 middle lights started to get closer to each other I assumed it was still a plane and that it was merely my line of sight that made those lights appear to move closer to each other. But you see, the front light move off slightly by itself while the 2 middle lights 'danced', for want of a better word - the left light becoming the right light and vice versa.

I have gone through everything I can think of - and I know the explanation does not do it justice, but can't seem to come up with these lights as being anything 'from this earth' as it were.

Why are you so convinced that these lights were not from this earth?

If I was now to say that I was under the impression that 'aliens' existed and were observing or at least passing by this planet I would at least have some form of personal experience to support (at least to myself) my 'belief'.

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.

So if there is a god and it wants people to worship and believe in it, why does it not provide everyone with an 'experience' that would leave them in the position I am currently in?

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.

I did not have to track down, want to find, or search for UFO's or aliens, I just had an experience that now clearly affects my views. So why does a god not do this?

There are people who claim to have experiences of the same nature.

I have heard of people having claimed experiences of gods and whatnot, but surely it would be in the best interests of both man and god if we were all given such an experience?

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.

Your precious "faith" would still exist regardless to the experience - after all, even though convinced that these things were alien craft I could never provide anything to support such a claim and so ultimately it is along those same lines. (Trust me, I am ultimately pissed off that I didn't have a video camera on me).

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?

You would still have the choice and ability to accept or reject, but you would at least have been given an experience of this entity.

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.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

From the west 4 big lights appeared and travelled slowly across the path of my vision. I looked at them, somewhat bemused and yet as a natural born skeptic trying to associate them to something I could relate to. An airplane perhaps - it is after all flying in the sky. When the 2 middle lights started to get closer to each other I assumed it was still a plane and that it was merely my line of sight that made those lights appear to move closer to each other. But you see, the front light move off slightly by itself while the 2 middle lights 'danced', for want of a better word - the left light becoming the right light and vice versa.

Very cool. It sucks for it to have to remain in the 'unidentified' category, but it is an experience to compare to others.

 

[Lepore64]

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?

 

[(Q)]

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.

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."

 

[SnakeLord]

Sorry it's been a while, I have been seriously busy..

Ken:

I don't think this is similar to experiences with 'god' in any way

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:

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.

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:

Why are you so convinced that these lights were not from this earth?

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.

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.

To what degree? I can get 3,000,000 pages from google if I look for those claiming to have seen UFO's.

There are people who claim to have experiences of the same nature.

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.

What, now, would it take to convince you that these were not alien craft?

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:

But if God showed up and said here I am! He would elminate the choice.

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.

 

[greenberg]

So if there is a god and it wants people to worship and believe in it, why does it not provide everyone with an 'experience' that would leave them in the position I am currently in? I did not have to track down, want to find, or search for UFO's or aliens, I just had an experience that now clearly affects my views. So why does a god not do this?

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.

 

[(Q)]

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

 

[Cyperium]

I have spent most of the day and indeed last night trying to find the best way to explain what I want to explain and ask what I want to ask. I feel that both the explanation and question will be inadequate, and for that I apologise in advance.

So let me tell you about last night:

I had planned to go out with a friend for a few drinks and while waiting for him to turn up here decided to have a smoke. I don't smoke inside because of my kids so I went out into the back garden and lit up. It was a very clear early evening - the Plough, (big dipper), shone in the night sky along with dozens of other stars and I spend a good few minutes looking up at them, (I am truly fascinated by space).

From the west 4 big lights appeared and travelled slowly across the path of my vision. I looked at them, somewhat bemused and yet as a natural born skeptic trying to associate them to something I could relate to. An airplane perhaps - it is after all flying in the sky. When the 2 middle lights started to get closer to each other I assumed it was still a plane and that it was merely my line of sight that made those lights appear to move closer to each other. But you see, the front light move off slightly by itself while the 2 middle lights 'danced', for want of a better word - the left light becoming the right light and vice versa.

I have gone through everything I can think of - and I know the explanation does not do it justice, but can't seem to come up with these lights as being anything 'from this earth' as it were.

So, I hear you ask.. what does any of this have to do with religion? Well, you see, I find myself in a slight predicament - a sane, rational, very skeptical individual finding it hard to come to terms with what I have seen. If I was now to say that I was under the impression that 'aliens' existed and were observing or at least passing by this planet I would at least have some form of personal experience to support (at least to myself) my 'belief'. So if there is a god and it wants people to worship and believe in it, why does it not provide everyone with an 'experience' that would leave them in the position I am currently in? I did not have to track down, want to find, or search for UFO's or aliens, I just had an experience that now clearly affects my views. So why does a god not do this?

I have heard of people having claimed experiences of gods and whatnot, but surely it would be in the best interests of both man and god if we were all given such an experience?

Your precious "faith" would still exist regardless to the experience - after all, even though convinced that these things were alien craft I could never provide anything to support such a claim and so ultimately it is along those same lines. (Trust me, I am ultimately pissed off that I didn't have a video camera on me). You would still have the choice and ability to accept or reject, but you would at least have been given an experience of this entity.

If anyone has anything interesting to say, I invite you to do it.

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.

 

[SnakeLord]

Because the thing is, eventually, this: Even if God would give me an experience of Himself, how would I know this to be so?

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.

----

I think it was you that wanted to see something "magical" as some kind of sign, from someone passed away?

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.

 

[greenberg]

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.

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.)

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.

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?

 

[greenberg]

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.

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.

One cannot be certain of those so-called experiences as divine simply on the premise that there are no former references.
...
Have you seen a god before?

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.

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.

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?

 

[ghost7584]

I have spent most of the day and indeed last night trying to find the best way to explain what I want to explain and ask what I want to ask. I feel that both the explanation and question will be inadequate, and for that I apologise in advance.

So let me tell you about last night:

I had planned to go out with a friend for a few drinks and while waiting for him to turn up here decided to have a smoke. I don't smoke inside because of my kids so I went out into the back garden and lit up. It was a very clear early evening - the Plough, (big dipper), shone in the night sky along with dozens of other stars and I spend a good few minutes looking up at them, (I am truly fascinated by space).

From the west 4 big lights appeared and travelled slowly across the path of my vision. I looked at them, somewhat bemused and yet as a natural born skeptic trying to associate them to something I could relate to. An airplane perhaps - it is after all flying in the sky. When the 2 middle lights started to get closer to each other I assumed it was still a plane and that it was merely my line of sight that made those lights appear to move closer to each other. But you see, the front light move off slightly by itself while the 2 middle lights 'danced', for want of a better word - the left light becoming the right light and vice versa.

I have gone through everything I can think of - and I know the explanation does not do it justice, but can't seem to come up with these lights as being anything 'from this earth' as it were.

So, I hear you ask.. what does any of this have to do with religion? Well, you see, I find myself in a slight predicament - a sane, rational, very skeptical individual finding it hard to come to terms with what I have seen. If I was now to say that I was under the impression that 'aliens' existed and were observing or at least passing by this planet I would at least have some form of personal experience to support (at least to myself) my 'belief'. So if there is a god and it wants people to worship and believe in it, why does it not provide everyone with an 'experience' that would leave them in the position I am currently in? I did not have to track down, want to find, or search for UFO's or aliens, I just had an experience that now clearly affects my views. So why does a god not do this?

I have heard of people having claimed experiences of gods and whatnot, but surely it would be in the best interests of both man and god if we were all given such an experience?

Your precious "faith" would still exist regardless to the experience - after all, even though convinced that these things were alien craft I could never provide anything to support such a claim and so ultimately it is along those same lines. (Trust me, I am ultimately pissed off that I didn't have a video camera on me). You would still have the choice and ability to accept or reject, but you would at least have been given an experience of this entity.

If anyone has anything interesting to say, I invite you to do it.

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.

 

[Jan Ardena]

SnakeLord

Ultimately it doesn't matter.

Obviously it does matter, which is why I am asking.

You get on with your life, I get on with mine, (this is an attitude most religious people should learn and adopt).

What does this have to do with my question?

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.

So what knowledge do you have regarding crafts from other worlds?

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.

To what degree? I can get 3,000,000 pages from google if I look for those claiming to have seen UFO's.

To see if any experience matches yours.

It's not what I'm asking really, (I'm sure it's my fault, relax).

I'm taking a deep breath right this very minute.

I'm asking why an experience isn't given to all - a clear undeniable experience that would leave no question as to existence.

Because "experience" is is understood through perspective, and understanding is based on sober intelligence.

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.

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.

Jan.

 

[(Q)]

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.

That is certainly relevant when comparing religion to science, when science demonstrates religion as delusions. But, that is not the case with scientific findings.

Perhaps "delusion" is too strong a word to use here, but in effect, incompletness, misunderstanding and mistakes are the same as delusions.

No, it is not the same at all. Delusions are beliefs held in the face of evidence to the contrary. That's religion.

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.

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.

Either way, in this scheme of things, those who claim that they don't know God, lose.

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?

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?

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.

 

[greenberg]

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?

Read again - I wrote out that specific double bind, and then qualified my statement as "in this scheme of things".

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.

You employ the same absolutist, double-bind strategies as many theists.
Talking to you is as pointless as talking to them.

 

[(Q)]

Read again - I wrote out that specific double bind, and then qualified my statement as "in this scheme of things".

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.

You employ the same absolutist, double-bind strategies as many theists.
Talking to you is as pointless as talking to them.

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.

 

[greenberg]

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.

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".

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.

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.

 

[(Q)]

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.