How would a god prove its existence?

April 10, 2016

I invite you to produce any contribution that science and rational analysis has made to answering the "riddle of existence" (aka "God"), which has been something pondered since antiquity, by anyone with functional intelligence. I can tell you now, there is nothing. There is no bigger fool than he who holds out hope that may change.

So love brought about cosmology? HAHA. Wow. I never thought I'd see something so painfully asinine.

April 10, 2016

So love brought about cosmology? HAHA. Wow. I never thought I'd see something so painfully asinine.

This chap may have disagreed:

We are all born for love. It is the principle of existence, and its only end.

(Benjamin Disraeli)

April 10, 2016

This chap may have disagreed:

We are all born for love. It is the principle of existence, and its only end.

(Benjamin Disraeli)

Well if he said so it must be true.

April 10, 2016

Well if he said so it must be true.

Mystics world wide, over millenia, have independently arrived at the same finding. How do you account for that ? They were all mad in the exact same way ?

April 10, 2016

"that the universe is so built and ordered that without any peradventure all things work together for the good of each and all, that the foundation principle of the world is what we call love, and that the happiness of every one is in the long run absolutely certain" (R.M. Bucke)

Another nut job ? How to explain it.

Edited April 10, 2016 by Habitat

April 10, 2016

Cosmic Consciousness was a book which he researched and wrote over a period of many years. It was published in 1901 and has been reprinted several times since then. In it, Bucke describes his own experience, the experiences of contemporaries (most notably Walt Whitman), and the experiences of historical figures, including Jesus, Saint Paul, Muhammad, Plotinus, Dante, Francis Bacon, William Blake, Buddha, and Ramakrishna.

April 10, 2016

More from R M Bucke.......

"This awakening of the intellect has been well described by a writer upon Jacob Behmen in these words: 'The mysteries of which he discoursed were not reported to him, he BEHELD them. He saw the root of all mysteries, the UNGRUND or URGRUND, whence issue all contrasts and discordant principles, hardness and softness, severity and mildness, sweet and bitter, love and sorrow, heaven and hell. These he SAW in their origin; these he attempted to describe in their issue and to reconcile in their eternal results. He saw into the being of God; whence the birth or going forth of the divine manifestation. Nature lay unveiled to him—he was at home in the heart of things. His own book, which he himself was (so Whitman: ‘This is no book; who touches this touches a man’) [193:382], the microcosm of man, with his three-fold life, was patent to his vision' [79:852].

"d. Along with moral elevation and intellectual illumination comes what must be called, for want of a better term, a sense of immortality. This is not an intellectual conviction, such as comes with the solution of a problem, nor is it an experience such as learning something unknown before. It is far more simple and elementary, and could better be compared to that certainty of distinct individuality, possessed by each one, which comes with and belongs to self consciousness.

"e. With illumination the fear of death which haunts so many men and women at times all their lives falls off like an old cloak—not, however, as a result of reasoning—it simply vanishes.

"f. The same may be said of the sense of sin. It is not that the person escapes from sin; but he no longer sees that there is any sin in the world from which to escape.

"g. The instantaneousness of the illumination is one of its most striking features. It can be compared with nothing so well as with a dazzling flash of lightning in a dark night, bringing the landscape with had been hidden into clear view.

"h. The previous character of the man who enters the new life is an important element in the case.

"i. So is the age at which illumination occurs. Should we hear of a case of cosmic consciousness occurring at twenty, for instance, we should at first doubt the truth of the account, and if forced to believe it we should expect the man (if he lived) to prove himself, in some way, a veritable spiritual giant.

"j. The added charm to the personality of the person who attains to cosmic consciousness, which it is actually present, and lasting (gradually passing away) a short time thereafter, a change takes place in the appearance of the subject of illumination. This change is similar to that caused in a person's appearance by great joy, but at times (that is, in pronounced cases) it seems to be much more marked than that. In these great cases in which illumination is intense the change in question is also intense and may amount to a vertiable 'transfiguration.' Dante says that he was 'transhumanized into a God.' There seems to be a strong probability that could he have been seen at that moment he would have exhibited what could only have been called 'transfiguration.' In subsequent chapters of this book several cases will be given in which the change in question, more or less strongly marked, occurred."

April 10, 2016

barbco196

I never saw lightning bolts when I made a baby.

So many straight lines; so little time.

Nuke W

I simply can't accept something as being true without having evidence for it.

If you really mean that as stated, then you dissent from normative accounts of uncertain reasoning. I suspect you meant something else (perhaps, "I filter fact claims which, as I see it, originate from other human beings, demanding that they surpass some threhhold of evidence," i.e, I don't ask the door-to-door JW's and Mormons in for coffee).

The trick is to integrate a priori coonsiderations of reasonableness with whatever evidence is available. Even if there were no evidence, you might accept a propositon on the prioristic grounds alone, and probably do sometimes. I don't know you enough to know which one, but I accept on no evidence that there is such a proposition (maybe many).

Habitat

Cosmic Consciousness was a book which he researched and wrote over a period of many years. It was published in 1901 and has been reprinted several times since then. In it, Bucke describes his own experience, the experiences of contemporaries (most notably Walt Whitman), and the experiences of historical figures, including Jesus, Saint Paul, Muhammad, Plotinus, Dante, Francis Bacon, William Blake, Buddha, and Ramakrishna.

Bucke had his mind blown one evening on his way home from visiting friends. As a psychiartrist, he decided to investigate what happened. He was also a seriously qualified admirer of Whitman, a very happenin' dude.

Bucke did make a fundamental contribution: a lot of people who founded religions seem to have had their mind blown, much as he did. Somehow, however, he skipped class when the need for control groups was discussed. Do people who don't found religions have the same kind of experiences?

The answer is yes. We know from the Gallup Poll that about half of all adults in the US and UK report having had an episode of some sort. The precise percentage varies with wording of the question and when Gallup asks (I think they first asked in the 1960's or 1970's).

Although Bucke can be forgiven for not having the Gallup Poll available, 1901 was a wooly time. Had he sought a control group, he could have found one easily enough. A scholar of Whitman should have known about Yeats, who published his essay "Magic" in 1901. The essay is discussed here, and you can down load it (now with paragraphs!)

https://uncertaintis...-jungs-science/

Bucke may never have read the essay (he died in 1902), but Yeats was part of a (secular) group (that is, lots of artsy people) who courted this sort of experience. Plus, although it was somewhat hushed up, there were probably thousands of ordinary Americans (Bucke was Canadian) who had had anomalous visions as part of a Hallowe'en ritual,

https://uncertaintis...halloween-1914/

Moreover, that body of experience features predominantly women, yet Bucke thought this was a male thing. Yeats' group was open to both sexes, and had women in leadership roles, so Bucke really has little excuse. As you mention, Paul of Tarsus was in Bucke's sample of talented men, and Paul reported both method (not just spontaneous experience like Bucke's) and women's participation.

Bottom line: Bucke had a fine idea, and was well placed to research it, but he dropped the ball, and flubbed in ways that would raise eyebrows at an eighth grade science fair. Physicians use the "case report method" a lot, and so may not see the value of controls in investigative design as readily as do others with scientific training. Even so, Bucke's book is a collection of anecdotes united by his missed opportunity to contribute to real science.

April 10, 2016

barbco196

So many straight lines; so little time.

Nuke W

If you really mean that as stated, then you dissent from normative accounts of uncertain reasoning. I suspect you meant something else (perhaps, "I filter fact claims which, as I see it, originate from other human beings, demanding that they surpass some threhhold of evidence," i.e, I don't ask the door-to-door JW's and Mormons in for coffee).

The trick is to integrate a priori coonsiderations of reasonableness with whatever evidence is available. Even if there were no evidence, you might accept a propositon on the prioristic grounds alone, and probably do sometimes. I don't know you enough to know which one, but I accept on no evidence that there is such a proposition (maybe many).

Habitat

Bucke had his mind blown one evening on his way home from visiting friends. As a psychiartrist, he decided to investigate what happened. He was also a seriously qualified admirer of Whitman, a very happenin' dude.

Bucke did make a fundamental contribution: a lot of people who founded religions seem to have had their mind blown, much as he did. Somehow, however, he skipped class when the need for control groups was discussed. Do people who don't found religions have the same kind of experiences?

The answer is yes. We know from the Gallup Poll that about half of all adults in the US and UK report having had an episode of some sort. The precise percentage varies with wording of the question and when Gallup asks (I think they first asked in the 1960's or 1970's).

Although Bucke can be forgiven for not having the Gallup Poll available, 1901 was a wooly time. Had he sought a control group, he could have found one easily enough. A scholar of Whitman should have known about Yeats, who published his essay "Magic" in 1901. The essay is discussed here, and you can down load it (now with paragraphs!)

https://uncertaintis...-jungs-science/

Bucke may never have read the essay (he died in 1902), but Yeats was part of a (secular) group (that is, lots of artsy people) who courted this sort of experience. Plus, although it was somewhat hushed up, there were probably thousands of ordinary Americans (Bucke was Canadian) who had had anomalous visions as part of a Hallowe'en ritual,

https://uncertaintis...halloween-1914/

Moreover, that body of experience features predominantly women, yet Bucke thought this was a male thing. Yeats' group was open to both sexes, and had women in leadership roles, so Bucke really has little excuse. As you mention, Paul of Tarsus was in Bucke's sample of talented men, and Paul reported both method (not just spontaneous experience like Bucke's) and women's participation.

Bottom line: Bucke had a fine idea, and was well placed to research it, but he dropped the ball, and flubbed in ways that would raise eyebrows at an eighth grade science fair. Physicians use the "case report method" a lot, and so may not see the value of controls in investigative design as readily as do others with scientific training. Even so, Bucke's book is a collection of anecdotes united by his missed opportunity to contribute to real science.

Wow, great post, great links I had not heard of Burke and learned a lot of viable information.

April 10, 2016

I'll await further instruction from "beyond" before venturing into the cave.

A cave retreat ? No thanks, I will keep to my 'hermitage' which includes gardens, river rainforest waterfalls beach . I want to be able to see what is trying to crawl over me thanks

I went deep into a cave once. For some reason I wondered how dark it would be if I turned off my light. So I did ... yep, thats pretty dark , now to turn my light back on .... back on .... back ON ! .....

... ah crap ! :blush:

April 10, 2016

I feel I have to make a confession here. If not already assumed about it already, because of my posting history. When it comes to mystics and philosophers, I'm not read up or educated as a good educated and well thinking posters here. I tend to get my thought processes from reading varying thought provoking and character building fictions. Whether historical, science fiction, or Native American, I tend to take ideas of characters the authors create. I have a hard time committing myself entirely to a particular individual, philosopher or someone close, when I read their works and their philosophers.

It's not that I don't agree with them or keep myself in denial, I just do not want to depend on them in how I relate to my path. I feel, that I have innate senses that 'talk to me'. Weird, I know, that's why I don't insist this thinking on others. Plus, Those read up here, have a lot to impart on the world and these threads.

I think the many philosophies regarding God's proof of his existence, is very good place to start, or to use. To me, or for me, I just sometimes think that there is so more or that I see something on a different level unique to my own. I also find it hard to read closely to some philosopher's accounts, because I can't figure out how they come to these points. I guess we could chalk it up to my slight learning disability or my stubborn thoughts trying to keep how I see it organized more for me.

I am trying to read up on the posts here and on the various philosophers, but sometimes I can't get it right away. Sometimes, I can't see it.

Is that wrong? ( I just have a hard time catching up as well )

April 10, 2016

Well, the question was how would God prove "its" existence, and mysticism seems to be the only credible answer we have. Those who dismiss this as "anecdotal", are just judging before the evidence is presented, and with an attitude like that, it will not be presented to them.

April 10, 2016

Habitat

Those who dismiss this as "anecdotal", are just judging before the evidence is presented, and with an attitude like that, it will not be presented to them.

Actually, "anecdotal" is determined after the evidence is presented. Also, recognizing anecdotes for what they are is not "dismissal." Anecdotes suffice as defeaters for some universal claims, for instance. Anecdotes do not, however, suffice for establishing universal claims, or any quality of prevalence (rarity or commonness), special qualification (only men, for instance) or ambitious interpretation (this is God speaking).

As your own example of Bucke's momentary hallucinatory loss of presence and situational awareness illustrates, systematic inquiry will sometimes result in different conclusions than anecdote gathering.

Bucke's conclusion is familiar to anybody who hangs out on the web: "My experience is shared by some of the most famous men in history (and it is only men Bucke cared about), so my having this experience places me in an elite category." Systematic investigation revealed the contrary:

- this kind of experience is very common - a substantial minority or even a majority of people will have an episode during their lives

- the kind of experience can be elicited methodically, and people have done so for millennia; no special qualitfication or equipment is needed

- among the special equipment that isn't needed are testicles

That's a lot to get wrong, and Bucke getting it wrong was preventable. Anecdotes are subject to enhanced scrutiny because except as defeaters, they are chronically prone to mislead those who collect them. Bucke was misled, for sure about the importance of his package, and just maybe about the high-fallutin' cosmic importance of his blackout.

April 10, 2016

Habitat

Actually, "anecdotal" is determined after the evidence is presented. Also, recognizing anecdotes for what they are is not "dismissal." Anecdotes suffice as defeaters for some universal claims, for instance. Anecdotes do not, however, suffice for establishing universal claims, or any quality of prevalence (rarity or commonness), special qualification (only men, for instance) or ambitious interpretation (this is God speaking).

As your own example of Bucke's momentary hallucinatory loss of presence and situational awareness illustrates, systematic inquiry will sometimes result in different conclusions than anecdote gathering.

Bucke's conclusion is familiar to anybody who hangs out on the web: "My experience is shared by some of the most famous men in history (and it is only men Bucke cared about), so my having this experience places me in an elite category." Systematic investigation revealed the contrary:

- this kind of experience is very common - a substantial minority or even a majority of people will have an episode during their lives

- the kind of experience can be elicited methodically, and people have done so for millennia; no special qualitfication or equipment is needed

- among the special equipment that isn't needed are testicles

That's a lot to get wrong, and Bucke getting it wrong was preventable. Anecdotes are subject to enhanced scrutiny because except as defeaters, they are chronically prone to mislead those who collect them. Bucke was misled, for sure about the importance of his package, and just maybe about the high-fallutin' cosmic importance of his blackout.

"this kind of experience" is not at all common, I'd say, or it would be in the popular culture, and the popular vernacular, it is only LSD, mushroom, peyote etc hallucinations that have that status. As to whether that experience is the same thing, I very much doubt it, or we'd have heard it from those who have experienced both. And of course the extreme transformation of at least some of the subjects that caused them to live on in history, does speak to the non-trivial nature of what you have dismissed as a "blackout". It ain't science as most understand it, but is the only tool we know, to reach into the absolute, because science certainly can not. And the great beauty of it, is the availability of it, in principle, to all. You don't need material wealth, just an open, unblemished heart.

Edited April 11, 2016 by Habitat

April 11, 2016

Sounds good BTE. A wendigo story would be about perfect. One of the hikes I took with friends was an overnight near Mt. Hood in Oregon. There were four of us, all experienced hiking and camping, group and solo trips. One of us was a pretty serious hunter, and he was probably the most experienced cross country packer. We shared a boda-bag of wine after dinner and sat up talking late. One of us asked the hunter if he had ever been afraid of anything in the woods. I guess we expected him to say cougars or bears. He kind of laughed and said "Monsters". It was hilarious at the time because that is what the other three of us were thinking. The best part is that I never found out if that was a confession or a one word ghost story.

April 11, 2016

Sounds good BTE. A wendigo story would be about perfect. One of the hikes I took with friends was an overnight near Mt. Hood in Oregon. There were four of us, all experienced hiking and camping, group and solo trips. One of us was a pretty serious hunter, and he was probably the most experienced cross country packer. We shared a boda-bag of wine after dinner and sat up talking late. One of us asked the hunter if he had ever been afraid of anything in the woods. I guess we expected him to say cougars or bears. He kind of laughed and said "Monsters". It was hilarious at the time because that is what the other three of us were thinking. The best part is that I never found out if that was a confession or a one word ghost story.

SOunds like a dangerous man, seen it plenty of times, people get out in the wilds and are only a night in the bush off going feral.

How would a god prove its existence?

Recommended Posts

Rlyeh

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

eight bits

XenoFish

LV-426

Habitat

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Rlyeh

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Habitat

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Habitat

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Habitat

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Habitat

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Rlyeh

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Habitat

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Rlyeh

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Rlyeh

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Rlyeh

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Habitat

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Rlyeh

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Habitat

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Habitat

Link to comment

Share on other sites

eight bits

Link to comment

Share on other sites

+Sherapy

Link to comment

Share on other sites

back to earth

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Stubbly_Dooright

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Habitat

Link to comment

Share on other sites

eight bits

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Habitat

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Tatetopa