Silhouette,
I can do no better at explaining the God experience than Christian apologists have done throughout the centuries. I do know that the experience entails personal qualia, which may be described if that which is felt finds synonymous expression in others. In other words those who would not give the time of day for reading Tillich, Lewis, et. al, would certainly not care what I have to say on the matter. If you can share your awe at a beautiful sunrise with one other person who feels the same awe, you are communicating a spiritual experience. If you are into the concept of isolate qualia, you will not be able to tell others how you felt. Those who seek something more objective miss the experience of shared feelings. And yes, the God experience has to do with feelings.
The experience of God is a saturating awe at the magnificence of that which causes such intricate enormity within which all life is but a spectator. The inability to experience it is the inability to comprehend being immersed in its presence - a limitation on awareness and enlightenment.
There is evidence of God’s existence, not concrete/unquestionable proof, but good reasons to believe or to subscribe to theism.
The Kalam Cosmological Argument is my favorite form of evidence from philosophy for the existence of God.
Near Death Experiences are also very convincing.
Also, with higher awareness, one can sense that there is something ineffable in scope, power, and beauty responsible for the creation of the universe.
there is not even proof of our existence. Only our attempts.
So why bother with god.
The first premise of it is false and the second is an assertion which therefore renders the conclusion unsound
So, everything that has a beginning has a cause is false? What evidence do you have for this claim?
The first premise, “1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause” is correct.
But the second, “2) The universe began to exist” is false. The universe never began to exist, nor shall it ever end. God did not begin the universe. The eternal God is the reason that the universe is also eternal.
The first premise is false because nothing causes virtual particles to come into existence
Quantum fluctuations in spacetime simply happen without anything making them happen
The second premise is an assertion without any evidence to support it even though it could still be true
But there is no scientific reason why the Universe cannot be temporally infinite from a past perspective
Maybe God makes virtual particles come into existence.
Looks like you have evidence for the existence of God right there.
That’s just an assertion without any supporting evidence – an admission of the limitation of human knowledge.
Most cosmologists would disagree.
There are three major flaws with this I wonder how many you can see
If I see the flaws, then I don’t need your reply.
If I don’t see the flaws, then your reply is not helpful.
:-"
Are you absolutely certain that they would
They are very easy to spot so you should have no problem
Maybe one day you will get the hang of this “philosophy forum” thing.
Was this evidence obtained inter subjectively
Was it subject to rigorous scientific examination
What about the evidence for this entity called God
Should not that evidence be presented before the other evidence
Have all other possibilities regarding virtual particles been considered
All you have done is made an unsupported assertion and based your conclusion on it which renders it unsound
An unsupported assertion that required absolutely no thought whatsoever so weak is it so why did you even bother man
I’m sorry, surrept, but that is sheer nonsense. First, Science can never say “nothing caused this event”. And Second, you show me any experiment that has ever shown the slightest evidence that nothing caused something.
It is merely the declaration of an atheist preacher so as to avoid the obvious conclusion that in fact, everything really is being caused by something that those evil priests have been calling “God”.
You have become guilty of your own accusation.
Show us any evidence at all, against the horrendous counter evidence, that any scientist has ever recorded events that were caused by nothing at all. There aren’t any, because it has never happened.
The first assertion/premise is absolutely true.
I don’t know what “temporarily infinite” means. But it is entirely, 100% irrational to believe that the universe could ever have begun. The BB never happened. And there will never be a “heat death” of it either.
The first premise is driven by psychological impulses.
The first premise is driven by psychological impulses. Note Hume’s argument that is is psychological.
Kant has demonstrated it is impossible to prove the existence of God as justifiably real via reason and logic.
Oh bullshit.
You want it to be only psychological.
I’m sure you have no rational argument that supports your notion that you can get something from nothing, but if you do, speak up and stop your nonsense pretense of knowing the tiniest bit of psychology.
Hume’s supposition that perhaps correlation has been mistaken for causation is a very weak argument, easily defeated by Science over the past 100 years of testing.
At best, Kant was right at his time about what could be proven, but no longer. Kant would be wrong if he said that today. Get him on the forum and I’ll show him why.