Kafei

It is established science. Yes, "mystical experience" is a scientific concept at this point. Make no mistake. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oV3a2G9GS_E#t=11m47s The videos are lectures given by professionals who perform actual science relative to what these neuroscientists are referring to as a "complete" mystical experience. This is a term that's concretely defined within this research, by the way. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HuwkDgyIuao#t=23m04s No, it's simply not, this is legitimate scientific research you're failing to recognized, and I didn't call that person out as some attempt at a No True Scotsman argument or moving the goalpoasts, it was clearly a recreational description of one of these experiences. As I mentioned before, the doses they're using in the study are considered a high dose. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_6Wf8Xuq70&t=8m19s This assumption denies the noetic quality experienced in the mystical experience, it is its very nature something that people regard as the highest truth, and that's how it's expressed in the major religions as well. In fact, people will endorse that this experience is more real than every day waking consciousness, and that includes the atheists who volunteered for this experience whom after this event, no longer identified with atheism. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oV3a2G9GS_E#t=21m https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bu3q3GMHfE#t=34m36s Again, I've done this, and I have posted links throughout the thread. https://files.csp.org/Psilocybin/Barrett2017Phenomenology.pdf < This paper in particular... http://csp.org/psilocybin/ <--- Collection of studies that have been peer-reviewed and published in the Scientific Journal of Psychopharmacology. The "complete" mystical experience is well defined in this research, and many professionals have lectures on what precisely this term means. A person must meet criteria on six of the phenomenological dimensions that constitute a "complete" mystical experience, if they do not meet the criteria for these measures, then yes, they did not have a "complete" mystical experience. There's no "No True Scotsman" fallacy involved here at all. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HuwkDgyIuao#t=23m04s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxWvIp9XtUc&t=8m24s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUYDjV8lQxo#t=5m36s In each one of these studies that's been done, the about 70-80% of the volunteers will invariably meet criteria for the so-called "complete" mystical experience, and yes, this exact same ratio includes the self-confirmed atheists who signed up for this experience. I can do one better than that, I believe. Recall, I said that these professionals are defining the divine within the context of the Perennial philosophy. So, if I may quote several excerpts from Ken Wilber's book "Up From Eden" that describe what precisely the historical view known as the Perennial philosophy entails. Unfortunately, the orthodox Western conception of God is not simply as a psychological Other (separated from us by unconsciousness) or a temporal Other (separated from us by time), or an epistemological Other (separated from us by ignorance). Rather, Jehovah—God of Abraham and Father of Jesus—is an ontological Other, separated from us by nature, forever. In this view, there is not just a temporary line between man and God, but an unmovable boundary and barrier. God and man are forever divorced—they are not, as in Hinduism and Buddhism, ultimately one and identical. Thus, the only contact between God and man is by airmail: by covenant, by pact, by promise. God promises to watch out for his chosen people, and they in turn promise to worship no other gods but him. God promises his only begotten Son to his peoples, and they promise to embrace his Word. God's contact is by contract. Across this gaping abyss God and man touch by rumor, not by absolute union (samadhi), and thus history was viewed as the unfolding of this contract, this covenant, through time. But there is a much more sophisticated view of the relation of humanity and Divinity, a view held by great majority of the truly gifted theologians, philosophers, sages, and even scientists of various times. Known in general as the "perennial philosophy" (a name coined by Leibniz), it forms the esoteric core of Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Sufism, and Christian mysticism, as well as being embraced, in whole or part, by individual intellects ranging from Spinoza to Albert Einstein, Schopenhauer to Jung, William James to Plato. Further, in its purest form i tis not at all ante-science but, in a special sense, trans-science or even ante-science, so that it can happily coexist with, and certainly complement, the hard data of the pure sciences. This is why, I believe, that so many of the truly brilliant scientists have always flirted with, or totally embraced, the perennial philosophy, as witness Einstein, Schrödinger, Eddington, David Bohm, Sir James Jeans, even Isaac Newton. Albert Einstein put it thus: "The most beautiful emotion we can experience is the mystical. It is the sower of all true art and science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger... is as good as dead. To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highet wisdom and the most radiant beauty, which our dull faculties can comprehend only in tehir most primitive forms—this knowledge, this feeling, is at the center to true religiousness. In this sense, and in this sense only I belong to the ranks of devoutly religious men." The essence of the perennial philosophy can be put simply: it is true that there is some sort of infinite, some type of Absolute Godhead, but it cannot properly be conceived as a colossal Being, a great Daddy, or a big Creator set apart from its creations, from things and events and human beings themselves. Rather, it is best conceived (metaphorically) as the ground of suchness or condition of all things and events. It is not a Big Thing set apart from finite things, but rather the reality or suchness or ground of all things. A scientist who guffaws at the existence of any sort of "Inifinite" but unashamedly marvels aloud at the "laws of Nature (with a capital N)" is unwittingly expressing religious or numinous sentiments. According to the perennial philosophy, it would be acceptable to speak symbolically of the absolute as the Nature of all natures, the Condition of all conditions (did not St. Thomas say that God is natura naturans?). But notice, in this regard, that Nature is not _other_ than all life forms: Nature is not something set apart from mountains, eagles, rivers, and people, but something that, as it were, runs through the fibers of each and all. In the same way, the Absolute—as the Nature of all natures—is not something set apart from all things and events. The Absolute is not Other, but, so to speak, is sewn through the fabric of all that is. In that sense, the perennial philosophy declares that the absolute is One, Whole, and Undivided—very like what Whitehead called "the seamless coat of the universe." But note that "seamless" does not mean "featureless." That is, to say that Reality is One is not to say that separate things and events don't exist. When a scientist says, "All things obey the laws of Nature," he doesn't mean, "Therefore, no things exist." He means that all things subsist in a type of balanced Wholeness, a wholeness he calls Nature and whose laws he attempts to describe. As a first approximation, the perennial philosophy describes the Ultimate as a seamless whole, an integral Oneness, that underlies but includes all multiplicity. The Ultimate is prior to this world, but not other to this world, as the ocean is prior to its waves, but not set apart from them. This concept is not, as a logical positivist would have it, a meaningless or nonsensical concept—or rather, it is no more meaningless than a scientific reference to Nature, to the Cosmos, to Energy, or to Matter. Just because the ultimate, the integral Wholeness, does not exist as a separate and perceptible entity, does not mean it doesn't exist. Nobody has ever seen Nature—we see trees and birds and clouds and grass, but not some specific thing we can isolate and call "Nature." Likewise, no scientist has ever seen Matter—he sees what he calls "forms of matter"; but nobody, no scientist, layman, or mathematician, has ever seen a pure bit of just matter. Yet I doubt any scientist would say, "Therefore, matter doesn't exist." All sorts of intuitive and nonscientific certainties lead to the scientist to state that matter is real—and, in fact, for the great majority of scientists, matter is the only real, even though they have never seen it, touched it, or tasted it. The same thing, of course, holds for Energy, since mass and energy are interconvertible. No scientist has ever seen energy, even though he talks of "forms of energy," such as thermodynamic energy, nuclear binding energy, and so on. Although he has never seen just pure and plain energy, he certainly doesn't say, "Thus energy isn't real." But long ago, a geologist and philosopher Ananda Coomaraswamy saw precisely the crux of this "scientific assumption": "This is the predicament of the positivist or the 'nothing-morist,' that in acknowledging the reality only of that which can be grasped, he is attributing 'reality' to things that cannot be grasped because they never stop to be, and is driven, in spite of himself, to postulate the reality of some such abstract entity as 'Energy'—a word that is nothing bu tone of the names of God." Keeping in mind that the perennial philosophy defines God not as a Big Person but as the Nature of all that is, then Coomaraswamy is obviously quite right, and it matters not one whit whether we say all things are forms of Nature, froms of Energy, or forms of God. I am not, of course, trying to _prove_ the existence of the Absolute—I am simply suggesting it is no more improbable than the existence of matter, energy, nature, or the cosmos. Now, when a person believes that the ultimate is some sort of Big Parent who watches after all his offspring as a shepherd over sheep, then that person's notion of religion is petitionary. That is, the aim of his religion is simply to receive protection and benediction from that god, and in turn to worship and give thanks. He lives in accord with what he believes to be that god's laws, and generally hopes, as a reward, to be able to liver forever in some sort of heaven. The aim of this type of religion, quite simply, is to be saved. Saved from pain, saved from suffering, saved from evil, saved ultimately from death. I have no quarrel with all that—it simply forms no part of the perennial philosopohy whatsoever, and thus is not a view I am here advancing. For the "religion" of the perennial philosophy is quite different from salvation. Since the Ultimate is here pictured as an integral Wholeness, the aim of this type of religion is not to be saved but to _discover that wholeness._ And thus, to find oneself whole as well. Albert Einstein called it the removal of the optical delusion that we are separate individuals set off from the Whole: "A human being is part of a whole, called by us "Universe"; a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest—a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest us. our task must be to free ourselves from this prison" -Albert Einstein According to the perennial philosophy, this "discovery of Wholeness," the removal of the optical delusion of separateness, is not merely a belief—it is not a dogma one accepts on mere faith.For if the Ultimate is indeed a real integral Wholeness, if it is equally part and parcel of all that is, then it is also completely present in men and women. And, unlike rocks, plants, or animals; human beings—because they are conscious can potentially discover this Wholeness. They can, as it were, awaken to the Ultimate. Not believe in it, but discover it. It would be as if a wave became conscious of itself and thus discovered that it is one with the entire ocean—and thus one with all waves as well, since all are made of water. This is the phenomenon of transcendence—or enlightenment, or liberation, or moksha, or wu wei, or _satori_ or what neuroscientists today are calling a "mystical experience." This is what Plato meant by stepping out of the cave of shadows and finding the Light of Being; or Einstein's "escaping the delusion of separateness." This is the aim of Buddhist meditation, of Hindu yoga, and of Christian mystical contemplation. That is very straightforward; there is nothing spooky, occult, or strange in any of this—and this is the Perennial philosophy. At the very base of men and women's consciousness, then, lies the ultimate Wholeness. But—and here is the rub—it is not, in the vast majority, consciously realized. Thus, the ultimate whole is, for most souls, an Other. It is not, like the Jehovah, an ontological Other—it is not set apart, divorced, or separated from men and women. Rather, it is a psychological Other—it is ever-present, but unrealized; it is given, but rarely discovered; it is the Nature of human beings, but lies, as it were, asleep in the depths of the soul. The basic Nature of human beings, then, is an ultimate Wholeness. This is eternally and timelessly so—that is, true from beginning, true to the end, and most importantly, true right now, moment to moment to moment. This ever-present and ultimate Wholeness, as it appears in men and women we call Atman (after the Hindus), or Buddha-Nature (after Buddhists), or Tao, or Spirit, or Consciousness (super-consciousness), or less frequently (because of its loaded connotations) God. Because Atman is an integral Whole, outside of which nothing exists, it embraces all space and time, and is itself therefore spaceless and timeless, infinite and eternal. Infinity does not, for the perennial philosophy, mean Extremely Big—it means that spaceless ground which underlies and includes all space, much as a mirror underlies but embraces all its reflected objects. Likewise, eternity does not mean a Very Long Time—it means that timeless ground which underlies and includes all time. According to the perennial philosophy, then, one's real self or Buddha Nature is not everlasting and death-defying; it is rather timeless and transcendent. Liberation does not mean going on forever and forever and forever in some sort of gold-embossed heaven. It means a direct and immediate apprehension of the spaceless and timeless Ground of Being. This apprehension does not show a person that he is immortal — which he plainly is not. Rather, it shows him that where his psyche touches and intersects the timeless Source, he ultimately is all of a piece with the universe — so intimately, in fact, that at that level he is the universe. When a person rediscovers that his deepest Nature is one with All, he is relieved of the burdens of time, of anxiety, of worry; he is released from the chains of alienation and separate-self existence. Seeing that self and other are one, he is released from the fear of life; seeing that being and nonbeing are one, he is delivered from fear of death. Thus, when one rediscovers the ultimate Wholeness, one transcends — but does not obliterate — every imaginable sort of boundary, and therefore transcends all types of battles. It is a conflict-free awareness, whole, blissful. But this does not mean that one loses all egoic consciousness, all temporal awareness, that one goes into blank trance, suspends all critical faculties and wallows in oceanic mush. It simply means that one rediscovers the background of egoic consciousness. One is aware of the integral Wholeness and of the explicit ego. Wholeness is not the opposite of egoic individuality, it is simply its Ground, and the discovery of the ground does not annihilate the figure of the ego. On the contrary, it simply reconnects it with the rest of nature, cosmos, and divinity. this is not an everlasting state, but a timeless state. With this realization, one does not gain everlasting life in time, but discovers that which is prior to time. Now according to the perennial philosophy, the rediscovery of this infinite and eternal Wholeness is man's single greatest need and want. For not only is Atman the basic nature of all souls, each person knows or intuits that this is so. For every individual constantly intuits that his prior Nature is infinite and eternal, All and Whole — he is possessed, that is, with a true Atman intuition. But, at the same time, he is terrified of real transcendence, because transendence entails the "death" of his isolated and separate-self sense. Because he won't let go and die to his separate self, he cannot find true and real transendence, he cannot find that larger fulfillment in integral Wholeness. Holding on to himself, he shuts out Atman; grasping only his ego, he denies the rest of the All. Yet notice immediately that men and women are faced with a truly fundamental dilemma: above all else, each person wants true transcendence, Atman consciousness, and the ultimate Whole; but, above all else, each person fears the loss of the separate self, the "death" of the isolated ego. All a person wants is Wholeness, but all he does is fear and resist it (since that would entail the "death" of his separate self). And there is the dilemma, the double bind in the face of eternity. Because man wants real transcendence above all else, but because he will not accept the necessary death of his separate-self sense, he goes about seeking transcendence in ways that actually prevent it and force symbolic substitutes. And these substitutes come in all varieties: sex, food, money, fame, knowledge, power — are all ultimately substitute gratifications, simple substitutes for true release in Wholeness. This is why human desire is insatiable, why all joys yearn for infinity — all a person wants is Atman; all he finds are symbolic substitutes for it. Even an individual's feeling of being a separate, isolated, and individual self is a mere substitute for one's true Nature, a substitute for the transcendent Self of the ultimate Whole. Every individual correctly intuits that he is one nature with Atman, but he distorts that intuition by applying it to his separate self. He feels his separate self is immortal, central to the cosmos, all-significant. That is, he substitutes his ego for the Atman. Then, instead of finding timeless wholeness, he merely substitutes the wish to live forever; instead of being one with the cosmos, he substitutes the desire to possess the cosmos; instead of being one with God, he tried himself to play God. The science I've represented does validate my position as a Perennialist, and yes, I submit to you and everyone here on these threads that this is, indeed, the best scientific evidence which demonstrates the existence of God. Yes, but my contention is each hallucination is unique, and the hallucinatory phenomena associated with mystical experience is also unique and can be differentiated from other hallucinatory phenomena. I disagree. The science that's being done today has shown great efficacy with depression, PTSD, terminally-ill cancer patients, it's helped nicotine addicts quite smoking without recidivism, it's even been shown to be beneficial for the healthy volunteers, so I would say that the science would disagree with you on this point. We're not talking about cocaine or heroin, but rather entheogens or more popularly known as psychedelics which have, indeed, been demonstrated to be extremely valuable. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bu3q3GMHfE#t=55m25s

I wouldn't necessarily say that. I'm content with my stance and have absolutely no quarrel referring to myself as a Perennialist, an adherent of the Perennial wisdom. After all, that was the conclusion of the research.

Well, I'm just pointing out that the "fun doses" are usually, by and large, the recreational doses. You did not have a "mystical experience," especially if you thought it was "fun." And again, what I'm referring to is established science relative to these topics, this has nothing to do with anything that is "bollox."

Well, that's perfect sign that you took a recreational dose.

Of course, I've considered, and so have the professionals. However, what they're calling a "mystical experience" is precisely what ancient Christian mystics are calling a "union with the divine" or what a Buddhist might call "nirvana," or what the Hindu calls samadhi which is the absorption into Brahman, or what the Taoist call the "flowing of the Tao," or what Plotinus called "The One," each of these phrases are different ways of describing one and the same thing. You see, I'd like to make a point about "hallucination." Most people who use this term to criticize this research often have never experienced hallucination for themselves. You see, the term hallucination is actually an umbrella term which can refer to myriads of types of hallucinatory phenomena. Hallucinations can occur in any sensory modality—visual, auditory, olfactory, gustatory, tactile, proprioceptive, equilibrioceptive, nociceptive, thermoceptive and chronoceptive. Hallucinations can occur for myriads of reasons be it Hypnanogic hallucinations, the hallucinations of delirium tremens which are the withdrawals of severe alcoholism, or hallucinations that accompany certain neurological disorders. Now, the hallucinations of mystical experience can be distinguished from all of these things. In fact, the visual hallucinatory phenomena has been referred to as "form constants" within the scientific literature, and they are universally reported. Joe Rogan has made this point in his podcasts as well. That whether you're going to call it a "hallucination" or whether you're going to call it "a union with the divine," experientially, it's the exact same thing. It's the exact same experience. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbGVEXR1GQs&t=2h17m31s DMT wasn't known during the 18th century. Perhaps you're thinking of the 20th century thinker, Aldous Huxley? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aldous_Huxley#Death More accurately, I've posted evidence that mystical experience/religious experience can be elicited by natural means or by psychedelics. None of the professionals characterize the experience as a "brain now working." While you may not be able to drive during an experience like this, it's in no way a detrimental state of the mind, and the research has demonstrated that to be the case. People benefit greatly from these experiences. The modern research has shown that the majority of the volunteers in each one of these studies is able to benefit from it from the terminally-ill cancer patients whom after this experience, no longer fear death, they're able to live out the rest of their lives in open-mindedness and comfort, the nicotine addicts are able to quite smoking without recidivism, they want to start testing this stuff on alcoholics, and God knows we need that, and it's even shown to be beneficial for the healthy volunteers. So... I mean, what more evidence do you need? Again, no professional involved in this research characterizes this experience as a "brain failure," this is merely your unsupported projection. That's not "other evidence," that's just pointing to the fact that mystical experiences can be elicited in a variety of fashions be it through epilepsy, stroke as in the case of Jill Bolte Taylor, through spiritual disciplines such as meditation or asceticism, by psychedelics such as psilocybin or N,N-DMT, and it's even speculated to occur in the near-death experience. Perhaps you didn't take enough. The dose these researchers are referring to is no joking matter. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4eMCc8VdgE

Well, I assure you, it's not bollocks. I'm referring to research that has been accumulating now for decades initiating with the work of William James in the early 1900s, it was further elaborated throughout the decades by professionals such as Walter T. Stace, Ralph Hood, Walter Pahnke, etc. and it's been most refined in the more recent research led by Dr. Roland Griffiths and his team out at Johns Hopkins University of Medicine in Baltimore, MD. One important point to emphasize is that they found that the psychedelics only mimic what could happen otherwise if you took up a discipline like meditation or asceticism as the mystical experience can be facilitated in many different ways, you don't have to take psychedelics. And in fact, many people who do psychedelics often do not have this experience, because the doses required to elicit such an experience with magic mushrooms is, indeed, quite high. Terence McKenna famously referred to it as the "heroic dose." They concluded that the mystical experience is biologically normal. That is to say we're wired for such experiences. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_6Wf8Xuq70&t=8m53s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bu3q3GMHfE#t=51m18s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbGVEXR1GQs&t=2h17m31s

I don't think they've found God, the very professionals involved in this research are making that claim. I happen to agree with the science that's been done and also believe it's a good idea. The Perennial philosophy is a view that harmonizes the major religions, it's a view that unites people rather than separate them into categories which causes conflict. So, sure, it's also a good idea. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_UF5l7wxN-k&t=53m52s

I don't think you're understanding. It's not something someone believes, but rather it's a knowing, it is intuitively the case. No, again, drugs aren't necessarily to elicit a mystical experience. I've never known any such person to have this experience and remain atheist. It's been established that a "complete" mystical experience virtually is guaranteed to convert an atheist, and it has happened to many famous atheists throughout history: Alan Watts, Aldous Huxley, Terence McKenna, Richard Alpert, Allen Ginsberg, Jack Kerouac, Alex Grey, etc. What do all these men have in common? They were all atheists prior to their mystical experience. I believe I can. I have to inquire more as to precisely what your misconceptions are and I'm sort of absorbing that through what you've written so far. No, the two papers are summations of the research, the videos are actually speaking more broadly on the collective research that has been going on throughout the decades. Because it's pretty long list. Most of the more recent research has been hosted at this website here: https://csp.org/docs/psilocybin No, I didn't. It's not announced so immaturely, I don't think any professional would say it so crass like that. Rather the divine is defined within the context of the Perennial philosophy, and this is how it's portrayed in the research. That is less ambiguous than simply announcing, "We've discovered evidence for the existence of God" which in a term like God has so many connotations and misconceptions surrounding it, so instead the science confirms the divine by aligning itself with the Perennial philosophy. No, I said God is defined within the context of the Perennial philosophy, and mystical/religious experience is how people have glimpsed the divine throughout history, God has always come as a revelation in the mind of the mystic, be it Jesus, Muhammad, Plotinus, Gautama, Mani, etc.

@Strange Yes but you have provided no evidence for your god. I have, in fact, provided evidence for the existence of God. I'd wager either A.) you haven't properly understood the research and B.) you've obviously not had a mystical experience for yourself as these researchers established the fact that when an atheist undergoes a "complete" mystical experience, they will no longer identify with atheism after this event. The "complete" mystical experience was demonstrated to be a conversion experience for atheists. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bu3q3GMHfE#t=34m36s No one said that was the case. So this is a strawman fallacy. Well, you attempted to make a straw man argument yourself, I was merely retorting to your straw man. All that tells us is what their subjective experience is. That is not evidence for gods. If you are not able to understand something as fundamentally simple as that then their is no hope. You have been blinded by your beliefs. All experience is subjective, so calling an experience "subjective" is in no way a criticism of this research. And atheists no longer identifying with atheism should signal something to you that this is more than simply "subjective experience," the so-called "complete" mystical experience was concluded to be a universal phenomenon in consciousness, and we've all the potential to undergo this experience. To quote Roland Griffiths, the leader of the more recent research going on at Johns Hopkins, he's said on these experiences: "A mediating mechanism (psychological or otherwise) for a transformative perceptual shift after an introvertive mystical experience is that the individual now knows that a portal to something of inestimable and ultimate value resides within -- an access point to a sense of the transcendent, which is variously described in religious traditions as Soul, Holy Spirit, God, Brahman, or Buddha Nature. - R. R. Griffiths What is the difference? Because I can’t see any difference between what I said and “because that's what's universally reported by the volunteers." That's my contention, that you cannot discern the difference. Then why not actually post actual links to those actual published papers on the actual science? I did post links. And that is part of the problem. Just repeating the same claims and the same links doesn’t help. Well, I want to represent the research as accurately as possible, so I'm not going to make any other claims outside of what's been demonstrated by the science that's been done. Yes. You have said that repeatedly. But you haven’t said what this definition IS, nor what objective test could be performed, etc You have Google, don't you? I can give you brief definition of the Perennial philosophy. In a nutshell, Perennial philosophy also called Perennial wisdom or Perennialism is a view on the major religions which sees all major religions deriving their source in mysticism. Mysticism involving techniques and disciplines such as meditation or asceticism for eliciting what neuroscientists today are calling a "mystical experience," and the defining core of the mystical experience is a literal impression of being one with all that exist within a phenomenon in consciousness, a sense of timelessness or having transcended space and time, what mystics classically referred to as "union with the divine." The mystic knows that in some mysterious and indescribable manner, God and his universe are one. The mystic perceives all things as one, all men as his brothers, all creatures as his fellows and all matter holy. The mystic vision is one of unity and modern physics lends support to this perception when it asserts that the world and its living forms are variations of the same elements. And this is precisely what you find at the very core of all the major religions, descriptions of the divine that are monistic, henotheistic, and panentheistic, because they derive from these unitive mystical states of consciousness. The afflatus upon which has inspired the mystic to write on the nature of God. Einstein himself admitted to having a mystical experience, and this is also how he defined God. https://www.sociology.org/did-you-know-mysticism-and-religious-experience/

@beecee That is simply wrong. There is absolutely no evidence for any deity, or supernatural power, no matter how obtuse you try to fabricate it. Oh, and I see you are again onto this "mystical experience" as being evidence of something magical. It's simply not. You need to live with that. @Strange No one denies the subjective experiences or the role that drugs play in them. An important point to emphasize is that these researchers concluded that psychedelics only mimic what could otherwise happen naturally. But this says nothing about the existence of gods. Not sure why this is so hard to understand. Unless you have already made up your mind and are not interested in an open-minded discussion. I am speaking on the existence of God. I don't see why. The argument that some hallucinations are more "real" than other because they prove what you want to believe is a prime example of the fallacy of begging the question. No, they're not more "real than reality" because people are wishful thinkers. Rather they're more real than real because that's what's universally reported by the volunteers, even the former atheists whom after this event, no longer identified with atheism. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bu3q3GMHfE#t=34m36s So it seems to come down to: "gods must exist because people believe in them and have mystical experiences." It would be hard to think of a less convincing argument. Only that's not the argument. That's wasn't the conclusion of the research, this is your assumption based on a tenuous grasp of the research. There's a difference, you see. @Moontanman What part of youtube videos has no weight here do you not understand? What part of these lectures are on the peer-reviewed material do you not understand? You act as though I'm posting pseudoscience just because it's in the format of YouTube, and that's not the case at all. These are actual professionals who've published actual scientific research relative to these topics. @Phi for All My main grievance with them is that I like to step from one patch of firm ground to another equally firm patch. That way, I can be sure I'm headed in a reasonable direction down a path made of evidence. It's pretty easy to analyze a written statement that way, making sure from the start that the science and reasoning are valid, and stopping along the way to make corrections as needed. Too many misconceptions often signal that an idea doesn't have a good foundational understanding of science, and why read beyond that when an idea isn't based in science? I am referring to legitimate science which has been accumulating for decades now all the way back to the work of William James, if anyone here is lacking a good foundational grasp of the research, it is only yourself. You seem as though you're just being introduced to this stuff, however I've been following this research for about a decade now only to realize it has a rich history initiating with the work of William James in the early 1900s. Videos tend to steamroll over the viewer, taking them for a ride, making assumptions along the way with nodding heads as evidence (Mystical consciousness is real because it's called by many names). It's difficult to quote them, and I feel like I'm being duped into watching the whole thing when I would stop reading someone's written argument and request clarification as soon as I found a mistake. What these researchers are calling mystical states of consciousness or mystical experience is not a misty or vague concept, it's been quit concretely defined within this research. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oV3a2G9GS_E#t=11m47s @Itoero That's a god of the gaps. We don't know what created everything. There is no reason to believe God created everything. I was rather referring to a cyclical model of the universe as described in eastern philosophy, like Hinduism. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PcET3NkCTj8&t=2s And what do you mean with 'God'? Does your God has defined properties or is it rather an undetermined transcendent reality? I'm merely reiterating the science that's been done here. Yes, of course, it has properties. God is defined within the context of the Perennial philosophy within this cumulative research.

@Phi for All You still haven't told me why you threw this reply at me, in response to me explaining how science describes the natural world. You say it isn't changing the goalposts, so maybe it's just a simple strawman? Anyway, I didn't try to ascertain whether there's a god(s) or not, nor did I claim science was, so it's you who made the assumption. No, I simply agreed that science explains natural phenomena. It's a statement on what is. I'm going to stick to single subjects with you, since you like to steamroll over questions that challenge your arguments in an effort to avoid them. You've offered no challenge to what I've laid out here. What specifically are you referring to that you think is a challenge?

@Strange You can't use subjective experiences as evidence. We know that people's experiences are not reliable. Sure, that might be true for a courtroom, but the measures used in the study have been extensively studied, they have demonstrated cross-cultural and cross-religious tradition generalizability, but they had never before been used in a drug study. This is scientific research and as it continues to build, I believe it will continue to shed more light on these type of experiences for which religion has alluded to for millennia. They are also combining these measures with fMRI and the double-blind method of which even Richard Dawkins has recognized its scientific efficacy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLCpDPlt59g#t=2m55s I have had hallucinations and seen a tiny alien flying around the room on a golf ball. That is not evidence that small aliens or powered golf balls exist. Sure, but this is also a false analogy. What happens inside a "complete" mystical experience is quite concretely defined. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HuwkDgyIuao#t=23m04s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxWvIp9XtUc&t=8m24s Perhaps you should go away, study the scientific method and come back when you have an objectively testable definition of god. Perhaps you should actually look into the research itself, and realize that there is, indeed, scientific evidence for the existence God.

Well, the divine is defined within the context of the Perennial philosophy, and the tests done are these methods for eliciting mystical experience which has always been the way people would have a direct encounter with the divine. I'd like to quote a professional on the topic so that perhaps you can have a better idea of how these things are defined: "This mystical consciousness we've come to, at least, I would argue that it's evidence of the so-called Perennial philosophy. In each of the great world's religions, there's a word that points to it. You know, samadhi in Hinduism, nirvana in Buddhism, sekhel mufla in Judaism, Theoria or the the Beatific vision in Christianity, baqá wa faná in Islam, The One in Neoplatonism, it is the Gnosis of the Gnostics and so on. It just seems to be something that's intrinsic to the human organism, and it can be facilitated in many different ways. Not everyone has to take psychedelics drugs, and actually there are many people who take psychedelics and don't have this experience, but it happens in some wonderful meditative states, it happens in sensory isolation and sensory flooding, sometimes it happens in natural childbirth. We guys can't explore that option. Sometimes it happens in midst of creative performance or athletic heights as in the runner's high, but it's just there, and some people would say that it comes purely as a gift of grace, you know, some people just wake up in the middle of the night and POOF! There it is. And it's so profound in its many variance. I like to distinguish between the visionary states of consciousness where there's an ego, you're everyday personality kind of looking, beholding, relating to something that is incredibly inspiring, but it's within the subject-object dichotomy. Then there's the unitive mystical consciousness where the ego or everyday personality seems to die, and immersed in this unitive state, sort of like the Hindu drop of water merging with the ocean, and then the rebirth of the ego afterwards. I would define that as the 'complete' mystical consciousness." - William (Bill) A. Richards source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsgKUglCI7g#t=7m13s related: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GYaq9eICdo#t=4m39s @StrangeOnly in that it discusses religious or spiritual experiences. That doesn't provide any evidence of the existence of god(s). These experiences have been described in all of the major religions a direct union with the divine, and now scientists are claiming they can reproduce these experiences. Hmmm. It works (with warnings) if I change it to http instead of https (and then my ISP warns me that it is not safe!) Bottom line, it works. I don't post faulty links. Neither of which provide any evidence that there are gods. Again, the science that's been done would disagree with you.

It is odd, then, that you can only post videos and not the peer-reviewed literature. I have posted the peer-reviewed studies. Here's the primary source of all the published studies: http://csp.org/psilocybin/ This is about psychedelic drugs. Not god. And where was it published? Well, that particular paper you're linking above was published in The Scientific Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, and it is related to God, and the context the divine is defined within is the Perennial philosophy. Perhaps you overlooked that. Most of the studies done have been published in The Scientific Journal of Psychopharmacology. This link doesn't work. The link works for me. If you're using Android, you may have to copy and paste the url into a browser. So you have one irrelevant paper. Two very relevant papers relative to this science that has been done.

@Phi for All OK, you're a side-stepper. Someone who moves the goalposts whenever a superior point is brought up. I find it tedious and unhelpful. I never moved any goalposts. I haven't changed what I've said about anything. Now, you're just creating straw man arguments. You ranted about atheists mistakenly defining god(s), I corrected you, and now you're galloping off into the weeds again. Yes, atheists are mistakenly defining the divine. This is a science discussion site. We don't use two popular definitions of supernatural. If science can observe it in some way, it's natural. If it doesn't meet those standards, it's supernatural. I'm not sure why this eludes you, or why it's such a point of contention. Because our modern science is saying something quite different about religion, and sees the very source of the major religions residing in individuals undergoing mystical experience, an experience they've deemed "biologically normal." That is to say we're hard wired for such experiences. @Strange It is odd, then, that you can only post videos and not the peer-reviewed literature. If you refer to the post I left for @Moontanman, you'll find them at the very bottom of the list of links.

Whoa, that's HORRIBLE reasoning! Who said anything about whether there's a god(s) or not? It's the purview of science to observe the natural world and offer tested explanations. Horrible reasoning? The only person who's displayed is yourself, especially in asking that I not post lectures that help people understand what this research is about. And yes, science observes the natural world and offers tested explanations. Science isn't trying to define god(s), it just that god(s) are outside of what science describes as the natural world, aka supernatural. There's two popular definitions of supernatural, there's that which defies scientific understanding, and at the current state of affairs, mystical experience is beyond scientific understanding. They've only been known to western science about a century know initiating with the work of William James. So, in this sense, mystical experiences which for Christian mystics is a "union with the divine" is supernatural because it is, in a sense, beyond our current scientific understanding. However, there is a more popular sense of the word supernatural used by atheists, and that is to define the supernatural as something that necessarily defies the laws of physics or that is akin to magic. This is assumed by many atheists, and it's apparent in comments like @Prometheus who typed, "Such a god would be easy to detect - we would just look for instances where the laws of physics contradict themselves (i.e. the rules change) - seas start to part, lakes turn into wine, whatever other crazy stuff you think a god might do. There is no sign of such a god." It's as though for the atheist to be convinced of God, he must be shown a magic trick, an example that defies the laws of physics, and I feel this is a complete misconception on behalf of the atheists of what the divine truly is, and how it's been explained within the context of the research relative to the mystical experience and its relationship to the Perennial philosophy.

@Phi for All *This is actually one of the few times there's a simple answer. Science describes god(s) as supernatural simply because they defy observation and prediction, two foundational tools of science. All of them. It's not an atheistic definition. Science describes what the natural world appears to be doing, and gods don't appear in the natural world. Pretty simple.* Science is not in the purview to ascertain whether there's a God or not, and science doesn't define God, religion does. So, you're making an assumption here. By the way, one can be an atheist without rejecting anything. I'm perfectly willing to entertain the existence of a god if one decides to become observable. In that way, I think I'm actually much more open-minded than you. Not necessarily, you're assuming that there's an entity called "God" that can choose to make itself observable, and that completely denies what the science has found is that a glimpse of the divine has been classically defined as a mystical experience, and in this vision, there is a non-dual consciousness, a complete impression of a unity within a phenomenon in consciousness. Such that when when the mystic undergoes such an experience, they then know without an iota of doubt that in some mysterious and indescribable manner, God and his universe are one. The mystic perceives all things as one, all men as his brothers, all creatures as his fellows and all matter holy. The mystic vision is one of unity and modern physics lends support to this perception when it asserts that the world and its living forms are variations of the same elements. And this is precisely what you find at the very heart of all the major religions, descriptions of the divine that are henoistic, monistic and panentheistic (not to be confused with pantheism). And this coincides with the science done on mystical experience and its relationship to the Perennial philosophy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oV3a2G9GS_E#t=11m47s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RT_WjwbSwPU#t=13m48s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_UF5l7wxN-k&t=53m52s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsgKUglCI7g#t=7m13s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxWvIp9XtUc#t=8m17s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bu3q3GMHfE#t=34m36s www.atpweb.org/jtparchive/trps-41-02-139.pdf https://files.csp.org/Psilocybin/Barrett2017Phenomenology.pdf Top links are the lectures on the peer-reviewed material, and the bottom two links are papers that have been published that summarize this research.

@DaniWhite 1.) How can something be created out of nothing? When you say, there is no god, no creator, then matter needs to pop out of nothing into the world. How can this happen? Is there a scientific law that says, yes that’s possible? I mean isn’t it the biggest wonder of all, that there is something instead of nothing. That there is an existing universe at all? What if this is a loaded question? That there is no such thing of "something being created from nothing," perhaps the universe is cyclical, and constantly renews itself by the Singularity and The Big Bang. In other words, it's always been here, constantly recycling itself through infinite Big Bangs and Big Crunches. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PcET3NkCTj8&t=1s We live in a world with a lot of beauty, complexity, things working hand in hand and consciousness. Isn’t this a bit too much for just a coincidence where matter created itself out of nothing, and no one (no creator) cares that this just happened? Where does this will to beauty, complexity, etc come from? It seems to me, that something wants to live. Something wants to be complex, etc. That's what the Greeks and Hindus believed, that beauty was part of the natural manifestation. It's embedded within the laws of physics. 2.) If you say, yes there is a god or a creator, is this easier or harder to explain? I mean god needs to create itself out of nothing. Is it easier for matter to be created out of nothing, or god to create itself out of nothing? Even without the creator God, you have more sophisticated notions of the divine that can accomplish this all naturally while being divine at the same time such as panentheism (not to be confused with pantheism), or the De in Taoism which translates to "of itself so." 3.) Will science ever be able to gain knowledge about god and give a definite answer about its existence in the future? Is it possible through new technology or the next Einstein to gain something that we do not have today, that will make it possible for science to say something about god, or will this be impossible forever no matter what? Einstein was a theist, he'd often invoke Spinoza when he was asked if he believed in God, and he did, only he didn't hold any beliefs in a personal God, he thought that to be what he called the "childish analogy of religion." By the way, science does have something to say about God: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_UF5l7wxN-k&t=53m52s 4.) Why can’t god be supernatural? When there is a creator who created the universe and the laws of physic. Why does the creator then have to abide by his / her own laws? Isn’t the creator bigger than live and can be supernatural? Now, many people have misconceptions about this term, for instance, Prometheus on the first page of this thread responded, "Such a god would be easy to detect - we would just look for instances where the laws of physics contradict themselves (i.e. the rules change) - seas start to part, lakes turn into wine, whatever other crazy stuff you think a god might do. There is no sign of such a god." Well, that's just utterly wrong, if God is supernatural in the sense that most atheists define, meaning beyond the laws of physics, then detecting God wouldn't be "easy," it would be actually one of the greatest achievements of science to detect something like that. That's the limitations of science, not God. You see, I think it's a mistake on behalf of the atheists I encounter to necessarily define God as something supernatural. That is to say, to define the divine with the requirement that its description should be something that defies physics or is synonymous with magic, etc. Einstein rightly referred to this as the "childish analogy of religion," and ironically it's the one notion most atheists I meet have as for their very reason for their rejection of theism. You see, the atheist essentially conjures his/her own conception of God, makes it supernatural, omniscient, omnibenevolent, etc. from the influence of their, shall I say, eisegesis of what they understand about religion, then proceeds to reject the very thing which they themselves conjured. Seems quite silly, but this is, in fact, the case. The science is saying something quite different and has implications towards the very origins of the major religions, the nascency of each of the world's great faiths residing in individuals engaging what they're referring to as a "mystical experience," and have found it is, indeed, a biologically normal phenomenon. I get the impression no one is clicking these links. These aren't simply "YouTube links," these are lectures given by actual professionals who perform actual science relative to these topics. These studies have been peer-reviewed and published in The Scientific Journal of Psychopharmacology. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bu3q3GMHfE#t=51m18s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AifzF2BJxEE#t=22m25s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PY0oGjYqhhw#t=6m26s

Alex Grey? Who the hell is that? Oh yeah I see....https://www.alexgrey.com/ Sorry not what I call reputable and again I'm not into drugs as defined. I wasn't necessarily referring to Alex Grey's case, but rather the panel of professionals he was addressing. Alex Grey was just side-note, he's pretty famous, he's done work for bands like Nirvana's "In Utero" album and Tool's Lateralus and 10,000 days. I was just recognizing him as a celebrity, I suppose, by virtue that he's associated with advocating the mystical experience. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5jd4PKMUJBI You are confusing philosophical musings and philosophy with practical empirical science. No, I'm not, that's what you're doing. I'm speaking of concrete evidence which has been established, you're referencing "philosophical musings," whatever that is. Science in many and all disciplines have papers based on speculation, eg: multi verse and of course the excellent universe from nothing I gave you before. Real scientists accept that as yet, it is not evidenced based accepted mainstream science. You need to finally accept that. I've never mentioned speculation at all. This has been your projection, and the multiverse is another one of your assumptions. No physicist has ever proven M-theory or any theory related to a TOE.

Yes, it's everyone else's fault and everyone else's misunderstandings except of course your own obtuseness and refusal to answer directly. I've never claimed this. People have been able to understand this science quite fine, Jordan Peterson is one example. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RT_WjwbSwPU#t=13m48s Let me be straight to the point....The evidence as you claim simply does not exist.It is nothing but philosophical musings and an apparent crusade by yourself in getting this nonsense, supposedly to the world. It won't because it isn't supported by empirical evidence. Your efforts in getting this published on a science forum, will in time just be lost in cyber space along with the myriad of other non scientific claims, made by other religious evangelists and cranks of one form or another. Your criticism here is entirely irrelevant and empty. You've pointed to nothing in specific, you merely make accusations where are demonstrably false. Science has not been done though. Speculative philosophical musings have simply been interpreted by some according to personal agendas. That's it in a nut shell. Only I'm not speaking of speculative "philosophical musings" but actual, repeatable and demonstrable evidence.

It it understandable why some scientists of note [Hawking and Krauss come to mind] are now dissing philosophy in many instances, when examples of so called conclusions and interpretations are "fabricated" by some in their evangelistic efforts to garner support for the ever declining idea that any creator or supernatural being is or was ever needed. The totally ridiculous claim that any mystical experience supports such myth is paramount in that fabrication. This thread and the one previously closed with the false provocative title of "science has evidence for the existence of god" or words to that effect, reflect these rather emotional and stupid claims. Again, the science that's been done would simply disagree with you for the reasons I've explained. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jey_CzIOfYE

But you are afraid to answer them again? Or is this your version of a cop out? No, I maintain I've not copped out. If it did it would be worth shattering news, but it isn't because your claims are false. As Alex Grey pointed out, it should be earth-shattering news, but just because it isn't, doesn't mean it's false. People are definitely slowly waking up to this stuff. It is slowly being inculcated, no one can deny that. No not at all, for the reasons just stated.. Again, what specific reasons are you referring to? Again? OK, If it did it would be worth shattering news in every publication around the world in large black printed headlines. I referenced a quote in my OP that addressed this question quite thoroughly. It's not my fault it was censored by the MODs. My effort here, in fact, is to get it published as it should rightly be published. Simply imitating someone when faced with a difficult question is not very smart. so again, if you are able. please present without links or preaching, this evidence that shows your god of choice exists...other then in your mind that is. Well, I'll reference my own explanation for Matt Dillahunty for whom, unfortunately, it went over his bald head, but I did express quite succinctly what this research is about. Notice the time-stamp. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2wLWFsiGvo&t=5m50s

Your links demonstrate nothing more then philosophical musings. If you are unable to answer then admit it. You deny the science I've presented. You can't discern that I've already answered your questions. Your links demonstrate nothing more then philosophical musings. If you are unable to answer then admit it. I have demonstrated otherwise, it's you who denies. No it does not for the reasons I have stated. What reasons? Good, then why not answer it again, for this poor old lay person? I've done that, I maintain it is you who simply denies that this is so. Then show me how I am in denial, because all I see is opinion, agendas, philosophical musings, and your continued attempts to evade the question. What you project is opinion, agenda, "philosophical musings," and the denial of the fact that I've answered your question.

Again, my question, please state the empirical, observational and/or experimental evidence, supporting your contentious statement/headline and thread, that "This is the first time science has recognized the existence of God" I've done that. The links demonstrate the claim. No preaching, no excuses about any loaded questions, no u tube video links, no agenda laden claims by interested parties, just the empirical evidence: the onus is on you to present that evidence. Again, the science I've referenced does precisely this. Good, then why not answer it again, for this poor old lay person? I've done that, I maintain it is you who simply denies that this is so. And yet this is the first time, I and it appears all on this forum have heard about this potential world shattering claim that you conveniently have interpreted from philosophical research. Now other then this hairy fairy mystical experiences, do you have any evidence supporting your god of choice? Again, I've emphasized that these professionals have recognized that their findings are in precise congruence with the Perennial philosophy. I've given a brief explanation of what this view on the major religions entails, and that it is not necessarily a philosophy as you keep insisting. I suspect no as per every other unrealsitic claim made by believers in the supernatural/paranormal I've also explained that the "supernatural" in the way you're defining it is a pure misconception.

You can maintain whatever you like. I maintain that you have an agenda, and are preaching, and blindly putting a wrong slant on some unsupported philosophical research that seems to support your agenda. All I'm doing is merely reiterating the science that's been established relative to these topics, nothing more, nothing less. This isn't "philosophical research," either, I maintain you possess misconceptions on this research that prevents you from understanding this research. Good, then answer my question and stop evading. I have answered it. You simply ignore it and deny it. Scroll up, it's definitely there.