Out of body religious experiences

[TomOfSweden]

My question here is, why is it doubtful? Because it is easier for him not to believe than to believe? Or does he have some sort of evidence to back this claim? The way he has worded his argument my guess is that he subscribes to the latter position.

To this I would say that I have enough evidence that God exists to be satisfied with my position. Being honest I also know that I cannot prove my position using logic or reason. That, however, does not make me wrong, it just makes me honest.

The thing I have come to accept over the years, is it is not my job to prove that God exists. I am responsible to give a reason for the faith and hope I have if asked, but I do not have to prove God's existence, that is His job.

Even if I was able to turn water into wine, heal the sick, raise the dead, and perform all the miracles ever mentioned in the Bible, this would not prove that God exists. All it would prove is that I can somehow manipulate the accepted laws of nature and do things that are normally considered to be impossible. All anyone else would have is my word on how I could do these things, and attributing them to God does not prove His existence.

I know I cannot prove God is real if you do not want to believe in Him. But, to me, it makes more sense to believe in Him than not, so I choose to believe. In spite of the assurances of a professor at Cambridge who thinks I am wrong.

"Being honest I also know that I cannot prove my position using logic or reason."

See what you're doing? First stating that you're an agnostic and from that making a leap of faith which you earlier stated you weren't sure about. The leap of faith can only be done once you are convinced. But you're obviously not. You're not really a Christian, are you?

[Rhabbi]

"Being honest I also know that I cannot prove my position using logic or reason."

See what you're doing? First stating that you're an agnostic and from that making a leap of faith which you earlier stated you weren't sure about. The leap of faith can only be done once you are convinced. But you're obviously not. You're not really a Christian, are you?

Being a Christian does not mean that I cannot admit my doubts. There are some great treatises written by Christians through the years as they struggle with doubt and questions. The writings of Mother Theresa reveal her struggle with faith.

Being a Christian is about persevering through doubt. I began my life as an agnostic, and my journey led me to belief in YHWH. I never doubt that He exists, but I sometimes find that what I believe about Him is wrong. A scientist may question a theory without questioning the laws that underlie that theory.

I am a Christian, just not one of those that thinks he knows everything because he believes in God.

My faith does come from a line of reasoning that will not stand up to a logical analysis. This does not make my faith less real, or even invalid. That also does not mean I am not willing to present a basis for my faith through argument. It just means that I acknowledge a inability to prove my faith through logic.

Does the fault lie in my faith? My ability to use logic? Or perhaps in logic itself? My belief is that it is the latter, because in order to make a logical argument proving the existence of God we would first have to agree on a definition of god, something that is impossible under logic.

[TomOfSweden]

Being a Christian does not mean that I cannot admit my doubts. There are some great treatises written by Christians through the years as they struggle with doubt and questions. The writings of Mother Theresa reveal her struggle with faith.

Being a Christian is about persevering through doubt. I began my life as an agnostic, and my journey led me to belief in YHWH. I never doubt that He exists, but I sometimes find that what I believe about Him is wrong. A scientist may question a theory without questioning the laws that underlie that theory.

I am a Christian, just not one of those that thinks he knows everything because he believes in God.

My faith does come from a line of reasoning that will not stand up to a logical analysis. This does not make my faith less real, or even invalid. That also does not mean I am not willing to present a basis for my faith through argument. It just means that I acknowledge a inability to prove my faith through logic.

Does the fault lie in my faith? My ability to use logic? Or perhaps in logic itself? My belief is that it is the latter, because in order to make a logical argument proving the existence of God we would first have to agree on a definition of god, something that is impossible under logic.

One of my heroes, Kirkegaard agrees with you. He said something like, a Christian, (ie follower of any faith) who doesn't question their faith can't call themselves Christian, (or what ever) because they don't know why they are Christian, (or the followers of any faith). So I'm all with you there.

But I wonder about this; do you really mean "persevering through doubt"? Doesn't that imply that you are trying to cling to your faith when it is tested? Isn't that just another way of saying that you want to affirm your belief rather than to seek the truth? Or am I missing something?

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but can a person really call themselves followers of the Christian faith if they keep a door open for atheism? Not to mention all the other myriad of versions on the supernatural theory we've had through history? The Christian theory is extremely specific, isn't it?

I actually think you are wrong when you are saying that your faith isn't a rational decision. I'm sure that you must think that it is on some level rational or you wouldn't be honest to yourself. Again, it is all about which kind of evidence you accept. If you accept that voices in your head may be god talking to you then it is a fully rational choice by you to be Christian. And the inference from this that it is the deity as described in the Bible. Others can question the validity of your quite rational choices. But I don't for a second believe it was a whimsical choice you made, which is what you get when your choice isn't based on reason. Right?

Just because logic can't be used to prove the non-existence of god, it surely can be used to prove it's existence?

[Rhabbi]

One of my heroes, Kirkegaard agrees with you. He said something like, a Christian, (ie follower of any faith) who doesn't question their faith can't call themselves Christian, (or what ever) because they don't know why they are Christian, (or the followers of any faith). So I'm all with you there.

But I wonder about this; do you really mean "persevering through doubt"? Doesn't that imply that you are trying to cling to your faith when it is tested? Isn't that just another way of saying that you want to affirm your belief rather than to seek the truth? Or am I missing something?

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but can a person really call themselves followers of the Christian faith if they keep a door open for atheism? Not to mention all the other myriad of versions on the supernatural theory we've had through history? The Christian theory is extremely specific, isn't it?

I think you are Tom. Many people teach that doubt is the opposite of faith, while I tend to think that it affirms it. This is hard to explain but let me give it a shot.

We all have faith that the Sun will rise in the east in the morning. This faith is based on years of observation and a belief that science would be able to tell us if something was seriously wrong with the Sun. Yet, if our understanding of physics is off by a bit, and something unforeseen happens to the sun that upsets the balance between gravity and fission, the Sun could explode during the night. Then the sun would not rise.

My faith that the Sun will rise is not shaken by me asking these questions as I then learn more about the dynamics of the balance between gravity and fission, and exactly what type of event would be necessary to upset that balance. I thus learn exactly how unlikely that will be to occur.

In the same way, when I question the foundations of my faith it grows stronger. I may learn more about God, or I may learn more about what I am questioning and learn that I am wrong there. I occasionally have to reevaluate my faith based on what I learn, but my faith always grows as a result.

I have come across people that try to tell me I should not read about Muslims, or Catholics, or even other sects of Christianity. What I have always learned about these people is no that they are correct in warning me away from others, but that they are afraid that if I compare their teachings to those of others I will find theirs lacking. Growth cannot occur in a vacuum. Whenever someone wants to keep me from learning something, it is because they want to keep me from growing.

Persevering through doubt is about growing, not clinging. There are plenty of close minded people who cling to what they were taught rather than going out and learning the truth. I refuse to join their ranks.

Yes, Christianity is specific, and as a result I am often seen as intolerant when I tell people that their beliefs are wrong. But I can also tell them why they are wrong, point to the internal conflicts in their teachings, and those of Christianity, and tell them that although I do not have all the answers, I do know who has.

I do not always win converts when I talk to people, but the fact that I am willing to listen to them, and be honest about my struggles, plants a seed so that God is able to work in their hearts and reach out to them. And, if you are right and I am wasting my time doing this, then I am at least enjoying my life and feel that it has a purpose.

I actually think you are wrong when you are saying that your faith isn't a rational decision. I'm sure that you must think that it is on some level rational or you wouldn't be honest to yourself. Again, it is all about which kind of evidence you accept. If you accept that voices in your head may be god talking to you then it is a fully rational choice by you to be Christian. And the inference from this that it is the deity as described in the Bible. Others can question the validity of your quite rational choices. But I don't for a second believe it was a whimsical choice you made, which is what you get when your choice isn't based on reason. Right?

Just because logic can't be used to prove the non-existence of god, it surely can be used to prove it's existence?

I never said my faith is not a rational decision, or at least I never intended to. If I gave you that impression I wish to apologize. What I tried to say is that I do not know how to argue my faith using logic. But it is far from whimsical, as you just pointed out to me.

As far as logic being able to prove the existence of God, I am sure it is possible. But, to the best of my knowledge, there exists no deductive argument that would do so. I know of a few inductive ones, and would gladly point you to some if you like, but an inductive argument is flawed because it is not conclusive.

As an example let us look at the most famous literary proponent of inductive reasoning. Sherlock Holmes carried inductive argument to a science, but all of his logic was not proof. He just made the alternative seem so far fetched that everyone believed him.

Nevertheless, inductive arguments are not proof. Just because I can make an inductive argument that it will not snow on July 4th 2008 in San Antonio TX does not mean I can prove it by logic. Thus, it is also impossible to prove God exists using logic.

What premises can I use that would be accepted? This is where making an argument about the existence of God fails. If you refuse to believe in anything but what you can touch and/or measure then no premise I propose will work to make a true conclusion, even if the argument is valid.

The problem with logic as a tool of proof is that I can use true premises and reach a false, but valid, conclusion.

[TomOfSweden]

I think you are Tom. Many people teach that doubt is the opposite of faith, while I tend to think that it affirms it. This is hard to explain but let me give it a shot.

We all have faith that the Sun will rise in the east in the morning. This faith is based on years of observation and a belief that science would be able to tell us if something was seriously wrong with the Sun. Yet, if our understanding of physics is off by a bit, and something unforeseen happens to the sun that upsets the balance between gravity and fission, the Sun could explode during the night. Then the sun would not rise.

My faith that the Sun will rise is not shaken by me asking these questions as I then learn more about the dynamics of the balance between gravity and fission, and exactly what type of event would be necessary to upset that balance. I thus learn exactly how unlikely that will be to occur.

In the same way, when I question the foundations of my faith it grows stronger. I may learn more about God, or I may learn more about what I am questioning and learn that I am wrong there. I occasionally have to reevaluate my faith based on what I learn, but my faith always grows as a result.

I'm not sure what you mean with learn more about god? How is it possible to learn anything about such an elusive creature?

I have come across people that try to tell me I should not read about Muslims, or Catholics, or even other sects of Christianity. What I have always learned about these people is no that they are correct in warning me away from others, but that they are afraid that if I compare their teachings to those of others I will find theirs lacking. Growth cannot occur in a vacuum. Whenever someone wants to keep me from learning something, it is because they want to keep me from growing.

There's a name for people who are against certain knowledges. They are commonly known as "idiots". Especially those who have opinions on what others should learn. I think you'd be doing the world a favour if you'd as soon as you meet anybody like that, to stone them to death in an instant. For the sake of genetic cleanliness. Just my not so serious humble opinion.

Persevering through doubt is about growing, not clinging. There are plenty of close minded people who cling to what they were taught rather than going out and learning the truth. I refuse to join their ranks.

ok, this is going to be interesting.

Yes, Christianity is specific, and as a result I am often seen as intolerant when I tell people that their beliefs are wrong. But I can also tell them why they are wrong, point to the internal conflicts in their teachings, and those of Christianity, and tell them that although I do not have all the answers, I do know who has.

Could this by chance be gobeldigook to confuse me? You just said you don't have the answers. How's that not a contradiction. If you don't, then how can you know that god does? How do you know god has any answers at all? How do you corroborate the snippets of information god gives you if you don't have answers? How isn't it 100% pure assumption? Even assuming there is a god, let alone the supernatural is a pretty big assumption for a person claiming not to have any answers.

I never said my faith is not a rational decision, or at least I never intended to. If I gave you that impression I wish to apologize. What I tried to say is that I do not know how to argue my faith using logic. But it is far from whimsical, as you just pointed out to me.

As far as logic being able to prove the existence of God, I am sure it is possible. But, to the best of my knowledge, there exists no deductive argument that would do so. I know of a few inductive ones, and would gladly point you to some if you like, but an inductive argument is flawed because it is not conclusive.

As an example let us look at the most famous literary proponent of inductive reasoning. Sherlock Holmes carried inductive argument to a science, but all of his logic was not proof. He just made the alternative seem so far fetched that everyone believed him.

Nevertheless, inductive arguments are not proof. Just because I can make an inductive argument that it will not snow on July 4th 2008 in San Antonio TX does not mean I can prove it by logic. Thus, it is also impossible to prove God exists using logic.

What premises can I use that would be accepted? This is where making an argument about the existence of God fails. If you refuse to believe in anything but what you can touch and/or measure then no premise I propose will work to make a true conclusion, even if the argument is valid.

The problem with logic as a tool of proof is that I can use true premises and reach a false, but valid, conclusion.

I think you're making it sound harder than it really is. The goal of formalised logic is only to detect logical flaws but any moron can put together a solid and fully rational case for god.

1) You hear a voice in your head that told you stuff.
2) You make a list of every possible and relevant source of this voice.
3) You make a case for every source on the list.
4) You sort them in probability
5) The leap of faith.

If you're not sure after this then you at least have narrowed it down to a few options.

We always do this instantly whenever anything ever happens to us. Depending on mental agility and laziness we are more or less thorough.

This BTW is deductive reasoning. It's where faith comes in. At stage five we always need to make the leap of faith no matter if we're secular or not. At one point we have to stop thinking and either start believing or sort it into the inconclusive box.

I don't think inductive reasoning can be used when discussing god. It's hard enough when we're talking common stuff we know. It needs a pretty narrow scope to give us any valuable information.

[Rhabbi]

I'm not sure what you mean with learn more about god? How is it possible to learn anything about such an elusive creature?

How is it possible to learn more about anyone? You do so by studying His works and listening to the people who know Him. Of course, this takes the leap of faith of believing in Him first, but He is not as ellusive as all that if you search diligently.

There's a name for people who are against certain knowledges. They are commonly known as "idiots". Especially those who have opinions on what others should learn. I think you'd be doing the world a favour if you'd as soon as you meet anybody like that, to stone them to death in an instant. For the sake of genetic cleanliness. Just my not so serious humble opinion.

Amen

Could this by chance be gobeldigook to confuse me? You just said you don't have the answers. How's that not a contradiction. If you don't, then how can you know that god does? How do you know god has any answers at all? How do you corroborate the snippets of information god gives you if you don't have answers? How isn't it 100% pure assumption? Even assuming there is a god, let alone the supernatural is a pretty big assumption for a person claiming not to have any answers.

I do have answers, but waht I do not have is all the answers. I also admit I could be wrong, as any good scientist should. I do not be one of those idiots that should be stoned because I think I know it all.

I think you're making it sound harder than it really is. The goal of formalised logic is only to detect logical flaws but any moron can put together a solid and fully rational case for god.

1) You hear a voice in your head that told you stuff.
2) You make a list of every possible and relevant source of this voice.
3) You make a case for every source on the list.
4) You sort them in probability
5) The leap of faith.

If you're not sure after this then you at least have narrowed it down to a few options.

We always do this instantly whenever anything ever happens to us. Depending on mental agility and laziness we are more or less thorough.

This BTW is deductive reasoning. It's where faith comes in. At stage five we always need to make the leap of faith no matter if we're secular or not. At one point we have to stop thinking and either start believing or sort it into the inconclusive box.

I don't think inductive reasoning can be used when discussing god. It's hard enough when we're talking common stuff we know. It needs a pretty narrow scope to give us any valuable information.

The major problem is that logic still falls short. A lot of people look at logic as more than it is. What it actually does is provide a struicture for argumanets, but I cannot prove anything using logic alone. I could mak a logical argument for the existence of God, and assuming all my premises were true then the conclusion that God exist would be true. The problem would lie in proving the premises. Using logic alone I would have a hard time proving that the universe exists because someone could always make the argument that we live in a Matrix generated inside a computer somewhere.

[TomOfSweden]

How is it possible to learn more about anyone? You do so by studying His works and listening to the people who know Him. Of course, this takes the leap of faith of believing in Him first, but He is not as ellusive as all that if you search diligently.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this circular argumentation?

The major problem is that logic still falls short. A lot of people look at logic as more than it is. What it actually does is provide a struicture for argumanets, but I cannot prove anything using logic alone. I could mak a logical argument for the existence of God, and assuming all my premises were true then the conclusion that God exist would be true. The problem would lie in proving the premises. Using logic alone I would have a hard time proving that the universe exists because someone could always make the argument that we live in a Matrix generated inside a computer somewhere.

Nah, you're making simple things complicated again. Making a case for gods existence isn't so hard. Whenever you witness, measure, feel or what ever Christians do, the presence of God, you can if you judge it so, use it as proof of gods existence. Like my Cambridge friend points out. Logic is just a tool. If you put garbage in you get garbage out. But if you have taken the leap of faith that your evidence you put into the logical formula is irrefutable then it isn't garbage and your logical conclusion for the existence of god is solid.

Here's an example of perfectly valid science using solid logic. In today's scientific climate it doesn't have the critical stance required to be called "good science", but it is real science none the less.

1. Observe some aspect of the universe. (Water Boils when heated to 100 degrees C)
2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed. (Water boils when heated because God wished it so.)
3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions. (Water will Boil when I heat it, God will cause it to Boil.)
4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results. (I heated water, God Willed it to Boil)
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation. (God made my water Boil Every time except for once, the devil put out my flame)

The big question is: have you witnessed God or a manifestation of god? When you witnessed this god force: how did you go about identifying it as a god? How did you tie that manifestation to the deity as explained in the Vulgate Bible? How did you tie that deity to the moral values explained in the Vulgate Bible? As you no doubt realise, we can go a lot further than this in our scepticism and question if and how the various parts of the Bible is connected to the God you witnessed.

So even if you have enough proof to convince yourself of the existence of, not only the supernatural but also a "God", you still have a long road to travel before you end up at Christianity. And you made such a strong case for agnosticism that I'm wondering how it is possible for a person as open minded as you to pigeon-hole yourself as holding such a spe******ed form of theism? It's not only the Christian god but a very specific form of Christianity.

As my Cambridge friend pointed out. Without the required support, any faith is a massive leap of faith right out into the dark. Others can attack your faith, but as long as you've taken the necessary steps to support your religion rationally you've got no reason to waver in your faith. Me personally, I'm very sceptical if that is even possible to support theism in this way and I'd love it if you'd show me the steps you took to support your faith.

edit: You could admittedly take what figures of authority say as evidence to, (like a friend you trust for example). But that makes you a sucker. Especially considering the case for the existence of anything supernatural isn't particularly solid yet. And you can't take incomplete or unconvincing evidence and judge it by sheer numbers. That is probably the most common error in logic. Each case of evidence has to be separately judged.