Hijack from God and science

[Kafei]

@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

 

Edited September 8, 2018 by Kafei

[Phi for All]

11 minutes ago, Kafei said:

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.

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.

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.

[Kafei]

@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.

3 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

Citation please... 

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.

 

[Phi for All]

Just now, Kafei said:

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.

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. 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.

[Kafei]

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]

7 minutes ago, Kafei said:

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.

OK, you're a side-stepper. Someone who moves the goalposts whenever a superior point is brought up. I find it tedious and unhelpful.

You ranted about atheists mistakenly defining god(s), I corrected you, and now you're galloping off into the weeds again. 

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.

[Strange]

26 minutes ago, Kafei said:

but this is, indeed, legitimate science

It is odd, then, that you can only post videos and not the peer-reviewed literature.

23 minutes ago, Kafei said:

www.atpweb.org/jtparchive/trps-41-02-139.pdf

This is about psychedelic drugs. Not god. And where was it published?

24 minutes ago, Kafei said:

https://files.csp.org/Psilocybin/Barrett2017Phenomenology.pdf

This link doesn't work.

So you have one irrelevant paper.

[Kafei]

 

@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.

[Strange]

3 minutes ago, Kafei said:

Yes, atheists are mistakenly defining the divine.

So what is your quantitatively testable (ie scientific) definition of "the divine"?

What tests would we do to confirm or deny its existence? What properties could we measure and what what instruments?

Edited September 8, 2018 by Strange

[Kafei]

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/

  28 minutes ago, Kafei said:

www.atpweb.org/jtparchive/trps-41-02-139.pdf

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.

  28 minutes ago, Kafei said:

https://files.csp.org/Psilocybin/Barrett2017Phenomenology.pdf

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.

 

Edited September 8, 2018 by Kafei

[Strange]

3 minutes ago, Kafei said:

and it is related to God

Only in that it discusses religious or spiritual experiences. That doesn't provide any evidence of the existence of god(s).

4 minutes ago, Kafei said:

he link works for me.

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!)

4 minutes ago, Kafei said:

Two very relevant papers relative to this science that has been done.

Neither of which provide any evidence that there are gods.

[Kafei]

3 minutes ago, Strange said:

So what is your quantitatively testable (ie scientific) definition of "the divine"?

What tests would we do to confirm or deny its existence? What properties could we measure and what what instruments?

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.

  5 minutes ago, Kafei said:

he link works for me.

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.

  5 minutes ago, Kafei said:

Two very relevant papers relative to this science that has been done.

Neither of which provide any evidence that there are gods.

Again, the science that's been done would disagree with you.

[Strange]

23 minutes ago, Kafei said:

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.

You can't use subjective experiences as evidence. We know that people's experiences are not reliable.

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.

Perhaps you should go away, study the scientific method and come back when you have an objectively testable definition of god.

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, Kafei said:

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.

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. 

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.

[Kafei]

@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.

 

 

[Kafei]

@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?

[Phi for All]

2 minutes ago, Kafei said:

No, I simply agreed that science explains natural phenomena. It's a statement on what is. 

*sigh* Let me show you again. It's right there on your screen. I said:

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

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.

And then you quoted the above and replied (I can't believe I have to draw your attention to this conversation we already just had):

1 hour ago, Kafei said:

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.

See the strawman I mentioned? Everyone else can. Can you admit it wasn't a reasonable reply to what I said? Especially when you NOW claim:

6 minutes ago, Kafei said:

No, I simply agreed that science explains natural phenomena. It's a statement on what is. 

 

[beecee]

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

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.

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.

I couldn't agree more!!! Simply put, religion, god [or anything supernatural] is unscientific, and the scientific method has served us pretty well over the last couple of hundred years...not perfect, but the best there is.

9 minutes ago, Kafei said:

@StrangePerhaps you should actually look into the research itself, and realize that there is, indeed, scientific evidence for the existence God.

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]

18 minutes ago, Kafei said:

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.

No one denies the subjective experiences or the role that drugs play in them.

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.

19 minutes ago, Kafei said:

Sure, but this is also a false analogy.

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.

 

[beecee]

3 hours ago, Kafei said:

@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. 

What do you mean by loaded? Something that is hard to answer, and/or may reveal some flaw in a "creationist argument?

Let's get down to the nitty gritty...Science does not know everything, Surprise!!! But what it does know is that the available evidence points to the universe/space/time [as we know them] evolving from a hotter, denser state at t=10-43 seconds. A big crunch would mean a recollapse. That at this time is highly unlikely as we have evidence that the universe/space/time is accelerating in its expansion rate, not slowing down, as would be the case for any distant recollapse. Whether the universe/space/time [as we don't know them]  or something [the quantum foam] has always been here is unknown at this time. Whether the universe/space/time is finite or infinite is unknown. With the question of something being evolved from nothing is interesting. Perhaps our definition of nothing needs reappraised? https://www.astrosociety.org/publication/a-universe-from-nothing/

 

3 hours ago, Kafei said:

These studies have been peer-reviewed and published in The Scientific Journal of Psychopharmacology.

Many studies have been peer reviewed, many aspects of speculative science and cosmology have been written about and peer reviewed and even put on U-Tube!! But the scientists that have written these papers, the professionals that have reviewed them, all understand that these scenarios are speculative. We have papers on multiverses, parallel universes, wormholes, White Holes etc etc, but they are still all speculative at this time. Likewise science most certainly does not have any evidence for the existence of any deity of any fabricated manner. The universe is actually an awesome simple place: I sum it up this way...the BB: Phase transitions and fundamental particles: Cooling and atomic particles and light elements: Gravitational collapse and Stars: Nucleosynthesis and heavy elements: Planets and Abiogenisis: Evolution of Life: And there you have it! 

2 hours ago, Phi for All said:

OK, you're a side-stepper. Someone who moves the goalposts whenever a superior point is brought up. I find it tedious and unhelpful.

You ranted about atheists mistakenly defining god(s), I corrected you, and now you're galloping off into the weeds again. 

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.

agreed totally.

1 hour ago, Strange said:

No one denies the subjective experiences or the role that drugs play in them.

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 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.

 

This whole aspect of drugs, hallucinations and mystical experiences, as being evident for some deity is bordering on the insane and extreme pseudoscience. Claiming this nonsense though is evident of some that have an agenda, a mission to "spread the word" so to speak, probably as an alternative and side track to the fact that science has made any semblance of any deity redundant and superfluous at least as far back as t=10-43 seconds, and extending all the time!

Edited September 8, 2018 by beecee

[Moontanman]

3 hours ago, Kafei said:

@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.

 

Nothing but peoples opinions of what was personal experiences, not evidence of anything but belief... 

[Strange]

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.

[beecee]

11 minutes ago, Strange said:

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.

When I was a much younger man and single, I had a mystical experience with twin blonde babes. 

Edited September 8, 2018 by beecee

[Moontanman]

3 hours ago, Kafei said:

@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.

 

What part of youtube videos has no weight here do you not understand? 

Just now, beecee said:

When I was a much younger man, I had a mystical experience with twin blonde babes. 

Yeah I had a few of those as well but mostly with redheads and brunettes.. 

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, Moontanman said:

What part of youtube videos has no weight here do you not understand? 

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?

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.