How does one determine God exists?

[GodPossessed]

Originally Posted by Listener

"Truth" is a relationship between a "proposition" (statement if you like) and a state of affairs in the world. You can have rules about what can constitute a "true" proposition (e.g. I cannot be going both East AND West but I can be both underweight and obese.)

Now what I think we want to mean by "Truth" is context dependent. We can't go off on a mission looking for "Truth" without it being "The truth about something"

This is the best yet. I like the way you put it. The "state of affairs in the world" may be unknowable, but it cannot be perception-dependent for it's reality.

[JamesBannon]

Originally Posted by GodPossessed

First off, let me congratulate you for being familar with Plantinga. You, at least, are somewhat current with classical apologetics. Would you be happier if I used identity, non-contradiction, the excluded middle and rational inference as things that we discover, not create? Truth is an interpretation given to facts. It's the conclusion in your syllogism. I tend to agree with you about numbers.

Again you make the same mistake. Identity, Excluded Middle etc are simply axioms of a conceptual system that we apply to observations. In and of themselves they have no independent existence. To talk of them being part of the "fabric of reality" is meaningless, pseudo-Platonic nonsense. We are what we are because we evolved that way. It's that simple. There is no "mystery" about it and we weren't created for some "purpose" because evolution has no inherent purpose anyway. It is undirected remember.

[Iacchus]

Originally Posted by JamesBannon

Again you make the same mistake. Identity, Excluded Middle etc are simply axioms of a conceptual system that we apply to observations. In and of themselves they have no independent existence. To talk of them being part of the "fabric of reality" is meaningless, pseudo-Platonic nonsense. We are what we are because we evolved that way. It's that simple. There is no "mystery" about it and we weren't created for some "purpose" because evolution has no inherent purpose anyway. It is undirected remember.

So, there is no "true" reality beyond what we perceive? If what you say is true, then you cannot answer that, and have no business attempting to try.

[GodPossessed]

Originally Posted by JamesBannon

Again you make the same mistake. Identity, Excluded Middle etc are simply axioms of a conceptual system that we apply to observations. In and of themselves they have no independent existence. To talk of them being part of the "fabric of reality" is meaningless, pseudo-Platonic nonsense. We are what we are because we evolved that way. It's that simple. There is no "mystery" about it and we weren't created for some "purpose" because evolution has no inherent purpose anyway. It is undirected remember.

I'm sure I don't agree with your metaphysics but we can discuss truth if you are inclined. Why are the laws of logic axiomatic? I can find no coherence in suggesting that we create the laws. Experience would favor the idea that we find the laws. They are axiomatic because we find them universally applicable.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by Iacchus

How does one go about determining God exists? Any ideas?

Yes. One does not determine that God exists. One can speculate about it endlessly. One can believe it is true or not believe it is true. In either case the belief is underdetermined. There is no set of evidence that is sufficient to verify either the existence or the non-existence of God.

[GodPossessed]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Yes. One does not determine that God exists. One can speculate about it endlessly. One can believe it is true or not believe it is true. In either case the belief is underdetermined. There is no set of evidence that is sufficient to verify either the existence or the non-existence of God.

agreed

[Iacchus]

Originally Posted by GodPossessed

agreed

And, if one were to go to heaven or, "walk in the spirit," as is often referred to in the Bible, would one know then?

[GodPossessed]

Originally Posted by Iacchus

And, if one were to go to heaven or, "walk in the spirit," as is often referred to in the Bible, would one know then?

I think so. Even a miracle would not do that. reasonable doubt and all

[Iacchus]

Originally Posted by GodPossessed

I think so. Even a miracle would not do that. reasonable doubt and all

I myself have walked in the spirit, on numerous occasions, and claim to know.

Here are a few examples below:

http://www.dionysus.org/x0501.html
http://www.dionysus.org/x0601.html#11
http://www.dionysus.org/x0601.html#15
http://www.dionysus.org/x0901.html
http://www.dionysus.org/x1107.html#211

And, while I don't claim to have talked to God personally (I doubt that anybody has), there's no doubt in my mind that this spiritual reality exists.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by Iacchus

And, if one were to go to heaven or, "walk in the spirit," as is often referred to in the Bible, would one know then?

Just how would one go about verifying that such an experience was an authentic experience of a spiritual reality and not an hallucination or some other form of delusional experience? I know of no absolutely reliable means of distinguishing the two. Do you?

I am not saying that such a subjective experience is necessarily insufficient grounds for belief, but that it is insufficient grounds for determining the actual existence of a deity, or even the existence of a spiritual reality.

Originally Posted by Iacchus

And, while I don't claim to have talked to God personally (I doubt that anybody has), there's no doubt in my mind that this spiritual reality exists.

That there is no doubt in your mind may well be sufficient grounds for believing in that spiritual reality. It is not sufficient grounds for determining that said spiritual reality actually exists.

Personally, I have doubts even about the things that I believe most strongly to be true. I have a profound distrust of all claims of absolute certitude.

Originally Posted by Mark 9:24

Immediately the father of the child cried out, "I believe; help my unbelief!"

[godfry n. glad]

How is it one identifies that "walking with spirit" as "godly" or beneficial in any manner? Have you considered that it may instead be induced by malevolent entities intent on misleading you? Perhaps instead the experience was really "Satanic"? Or, perhaps it was Brahmanic? Or, Islamic? Or, Wu-tian? Olympian? Roman? Celtic? Or, a shortage of required vitamins and minerals? Or, a psychotic break?

Perhaps it was any one of these, or something else entirely, as yet unexplained, and then was interpreted in Judeo-christian terms because those experiencing it were Judeo-christian in background and had no other framework to place it within?

[Iacchus]

Originally Posted by godfry n. glad

How is it one identifies that "walking with spirit" as "godly" or beneficial in any manner? Have you considered that it may instead be induced by malevolent entities intent on misleading you? Perhaps instead the experience was really "Satanic"? Or, perhaps it was Brahmanic? Or, Islamic? Or, Wu-tian? Olympian? Roman? Celtic? Or, a shortage of required vitamins and minerals? Or, a psychotic break?

It's a long story but, I would say all of the above.

Perhaps it was any one of these, or something else entirely, as yet unexplained, and then was interpreted in Judeo-christian terms because those experiencing it were Judeo-christian in background and had no other framework to place it within?

Well, let's just say that there's no doubt in my mind that it was "spiritual."

Oh, here is an interesting link that explains some of these ideas. It's about a clinical psychologist who describes some of the work he did with mental patients.

[JamesBannon]

Originally Posted by Listener

Oodear

Crossposting! Never having read Plantinga I'm obviously disadvantaged.

I can muddle through the language though ....

"Truth" is a relationship between a "proposition" (statement if you like) and a state of affairs in the world. You can have rules about what can constitute a "true" proposition (e.g. I cannot be going both East AND West but I can be both underweight and obese.)

Now what I think we want to mean by "Truth" is context dependent. We can't go off on a mission looking for "Truth" without it being "The truth about something"

In our context we're discussing truth about the existence (or otherwise) of "God".

I usually try to change the language because it's virtually impossible to discuss the existence of a non-entity and tautologous to discuss the existence of an entity.

I've nailed my colours to the mast above - can someone explain the relevance of Plantinga?

Heh... if I were to tell you what I really felt about Plantinga's style of argument Listener, the board would probably melt. He is a modern neo-Platonist. His latest arguments, if I may paraphrase without too much detail, involve concepts such as beauty and simplicity in mathematical models of reality. What he forgets to tell you is that there is no necessary connection between these concepts and the actual reality we are trying to theorise about.

Now some other comments. "Truth" is a relationship between a statement and some state of affairs in some particular world (or in some particular system). E.g., the truths of mathematics, i.e. proven mathematical theorems, are all true, and absolutely true, a priori within that system. They are true nowhere else. It is only by applying mathematics in other spheres that we can determine its applicability in those spheres.

As for Plantinga's arguments about beauty and simplicity, well they are just so much metaphysical nonsense. I remember once hearing Stephen Hawking making the statement (in respect of one of own theories later shown to be false) "something this simple and beautiful just had to be right". Well, bollocks! This is utter nonsense. The only tests of any scientific theory are a) does it fit the data and b) how successful is it. Nothing else matters: beauty, simplicity, harmony (or parsimony to use the technical term) are all completely secondary to these first 2. If any theory does not fit the data or produce testable predictions then it is useless so far as science is concerned. Note however that some theories, e.g. Newtonian Mechanics, have limited applicability and we can quite comfortably use these so long as we recognise what the limitations are. The point here is that they are not reality, even though the statements are true within the system.

ETA: More to follow when I'm a bit more awake and able to concentrate a bit more.

[GodPossessed]

Originally Posted by godfry n. glad

How is it one identifies that "walking with spirit" as "godly" or beneficial in any manner? Have you considered that it may instead be induced by malevolent entities intent on misleading you? Perhaps instead the experience was really "Satanic"? Or, perhaps it was Brahmanic? Or, Islamic? Or, Wu-tian? Olympian? Roman? Celtic? Or, a shortage of required vitamins and minerals? Or, a psychotic break?

Perhaps it was any one of these, or something else entirely, as yet unexplained, and then was interpreted in Judeo-christian terms because those experiencing it were Judeo-christian in background and had no other framework to place it within?

It's a very apt question and one that I have a lot of sympathy with. How do we know that we are not deceived? At the core of Christianity is a helpless dependance on God as the strong partner in the relationship between God and man. If God is good and loving but undiscoverable by me, and yet I have reason to believe that he desires interaction, then I must proceed as if He will protect the process of our meeting. Before the flaming starts, I already know that this is subjective, unprovable, unscientific and all the rest. Here I stand, I can do no other.

[Iacchus]

Originally Posted by GodPossessed

It's a very apt question and one that I have a lot of sympathy with. How do we know that we are not deceived? At the core of Christianity is a helpless dependance on God as the strong partner in the relationship between God and man. If God is good and loving but undiscoverable by me, and yet I have reason to believe that he desires interaction, then I must proceed as if He will protect the process of our meeting. Before the flaming starts, I already know that this is subjective, unprovable, unscientific and all the rest. Here I stand, I can do no other.

I think it would be fair to say that one has to be led through such experiences. In fact they can be quite harrowing, even downright ugly and, evil. But, after the big collapse, from the type of experience I've been told most people don't recover from (not without remaining institutionalized or, pumped up on drugs), I was fortunate enough to find, after a three-and-a-half year period, my way back, and put Humpty Dumpty back together again, so to speak. I honestly thought my life was over and, that there was no hope for me.

That's about where I was at when I had these two experiences:

http://www.dionysus.org/x0601.html#11
http://www.dionysus.org/x0601.html#15

It's quite a harrowing tale, and is epitomized by what happened here:

http://www.dionysus.org/x0501.html

And about a year later, after discovering the origin of my name, and pinpointing the two dates referred to in this chapter, to a specific festival held in ancient Greece (some reference book at the library), I knew I was on to something. But, it took another ten years before the book was essentially completed.

[JamesBannon]

Iacchus have you ever heard of the word coincidence?

[Doctor X]

Not if it supports his delusion.

--J.D.

[Iacchus]

Originally Posted by JamesBannon

Iacchus have you ever heard of the word coincidence?

I think it's okay to behave that way, because we don't have control over everything. But generally speaking, no, I don't. The things that I refer to in my book have more to do with synchronicity. Which would have been one thing if it were just one or two isolated instances, but it was something that kept happening over and over again. It's a lot like putting together the pieces of a puzzle which, if you've got one or two pieces (i.e., what I refer to in chapter 5), sooner or later the rest of it falls into place. I wouldn't be surprised if there were a thousand separate instances in my book.

One thing about it though, is that it requires a certain mindset, and you can't force anything to happen. Otherwise it won't work. It's like the pieces of the puzzle have already been defined but, there's nothing you can do until you find the right piece. So there's no point in trying to add something that doesn't belong there. Sometimes it will take a long time (although I might have a good hunch) before I find out where a piece goes.

[godfry n. glad]

Interesting.

How do you separate coincindence from synchronicity? And, do you take Littlewood's Law into consideration?

[JamesBannon]

Ever heard of chaos Iacchus?

[Doctor X]

Actually, one could easily prove the existence of a deity as one could prove the existence of unicorns and quality country-western music.

All would generate evidence.

--J.D.

[Iacchus]

Anything that can be conceived of, has its place, on the "other side."

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by Iacchus

Anything that can be conceived of, has its place, on the "other side."

Suuuuuure....and you learned that in your Superman comix?

[Iacchus]

Monsters from the id!

[Iacchus]

Originally Posted by godfry n. glad

Interesting.

How do you separate coincindence from synchronicity?

You don't, unless of course you believe that the Universe is a fluke, and we are strictly here by chance. But, then again, since the Universe is so complex, and some things are so far removed from other things, then, for all intents and purposes, we have the appearance of coincidence. Which, we need to have at least this much to maintain the illusion, if that's what it is? of free will. Or, perhaps quantum mechanics dictate otherwise? Or, perhaps the whole Universe is based upon free will (i.e., in the sense that God knew us before He created us), and determinism exists as a means to sustain it?

And, do you take Littlewood's Law into consideration?

No, I have never heard of this. However, upon looking it up, it seems to suggest the notion that "miracles" seem to happen more frequently than most us would suspect. So, how does that discount the notion that miracles do happen?