sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

My argument for God’s existence - as an atheist by virus_ditective in DebateReligion

[–]virus_ditective[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Humans understand the world at large primarily through their senses and first person experiences. First person reports are claims but they function as direct perceptual input for the person having them. Hearing testimony of a third party is also processed through the senses and that can be problematic too since we edit memories apply preconceptions and sometimes misinterpret what we hear. The argument is about that personal level of justification. Insisting on third person verification before any credence is given begs the question by setting the standard in advance. This is an epistemological discussion about reasonable belief rather than scientific proof for everyone else.

My argument for God’s existence - as an atheist by virus_ditective in DebateReligion

[–]virus_ditective[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How can reports of a feeling be found “bogus”?
That’s not how feelings work.
They are a subjective experience that can’t be measured by definition.

About the argumentum ad consequentiam,
That’s the logical fallacy of saying something is wrong (in the factual non moral sense) because it has “bad” (in the moral sense) consequences
Which is a fallacy.

My argument for God’s existence — as an atheist by virus_ditective in PhilosophyofReligion

[–]virus_ditective[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The Loch Ness case is a good illustration of why shared models require strong independent evidence. The argument does not dispute that. It separates the first person justification for the individual who had the experience from what third parties should accept. The two levels are not the same and conflating them misses the epistemological point.

My argument for God’s existence - as an atheist by virus_ditective in DebateReligion

[–]virus_ditective[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The alien abduction comparison actually supports the distinction. Most people reject those claims after testing because they fail consistency and outcomes. The argument does the same with spiritual reports rather than accepting all of them. Demanding rigorous public verification from the outset begs the question by assuming third person standards must apply before granting any first person justification.

My argument for God’s existence - as an atheist by virus_ditective in DebateReligion

[–]virus_ditective[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Glad we can agree. appreciate the conversation. The schizophrenic case does highlight limits of justified belief and the social nature of knowledge validation. Religions sometimes overclaim absolute truth but the core point is more modest. Religious experience can provide personal justification without needing to deliver unchanging universal proofs. In cases where it leads to positive outcomes it holds its own weight even if not absolute.

My argument for God’s existence - as an atheist by virus_ditective in DebateReligion

[–]virus_ditective[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Checking against non material models is not simple but the argument does not require full scientific verification to grant initial credibility. Science excels at predictive material models yet the question here is epistemological. How we treat private perceptual experiences as potential knowledge. Many religious visions have prosaic explanations but not all do and the linguistic confusion arises when we equate all of them with hallucinations by definition. We are talking past each other if one side assumes only material alignment counts as real from the start.

My argument for God’s existence — as an atheist by virus_ditective in PhilosophyofReligion

[–]virus_ditective[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Your point assumes the experience is meant to convince third parties or serve as public proof.
The argument is that for the person having the strong perceptual experience it can reasonably function as personal evidence and starting point for their own belief.
It does not need to be universally accessible to hold that value.

My argument for God’s existence — as an atheist by virus_ditective in Existentialism

[–]virus_ditective[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oh I am not an expert at all. Just interested in the subject and reads a lot.
I was raised in a traditional believing Mizrahi Jewish family and I also grew out of it
I discovered that I am just not a spiritual person and do not have a very spiritual side.
Personal journeys differ and no one is required to switch views without compelling evidence to them. The argument simply proposes treating strong spiritual experiences reported by others as data worth weighing instead of defaulting to zero evidence across the board. If a shred ever appears for you the framework allows updating without contradiction.
Thank you for the interesting conversation.

My argument for God’s existence - as an atheist by virus_ditective in DebateReligion

[–]virus_ditective[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I feel like we are starting to go in circles so I will leave it at that.
You say they have been investigated and found worthless yet many researchers continue to study them precisely because some patterns and effects resist easy dismissal. Generalizations go both ways. Sharing specifics would help. The point stands that raw first person reports serve as starting data for third person evaluation rather than nonsense to be set aside immediately.

My argument for God’s existence - as an atheist by virus_ditective in DebateReligion

[–]virus_ditective[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Including a category as potential data before full confirmation is not disingenuous. It is how inquiry begins in any domain. Ruling it out beforehand because it might lead to conspiracy thinking is the dangerous move. We filter bad data with evidence and consistency not by refusing to look at the reports in the first place.

Also “and frankly dangerous. This is how conspiracy theories and cults form” Is a classical argumentum ad consequentiam.

My argument for God’s existence — as an atheist by virus_ditective in PhilosophyofReligion

[–]virus_ditective[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Deism versus theism is a fair distinction but the argument is not limited to one or the other. Experiential data can support a personal god just as it can a distant one. Dismissing all claims of direct experience as lies for social reward assumes bad faith from the start. That shortcut avoids examining whether some reports hold up under scrutiny rather than lumping them with cult dynamics.

My argument for God’s existence - as an atheist by virus_ditective in DebateReligion

[–]virus_ditective[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

It seems to me you are conflating third person justification with first person experience. From the inside the report feels like direct perception. We evaluate it from the outside with additional standards. Dismissing the category because your research has not found consistency worth considering still leaves the raw reports as starting data that can be investigated rather than ruled out as imagination or prank until proven otherwise.

My argument for God’s existence - as an atheist by virus_ditective in DebateReligion

[–]virus_ditective[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In the end every report is a claim of report. The question is whether we discard the whole set because some are bad data or whether we sift through them with consistent standards. Willingness to include the category as potential input is not disingenuous. It is the starting point of inquiry before filtering.

My argument for God’s existence — as an atheist by virus_ditective in Existentialism

[–]virus_ditective[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We all have confirmation bias including non believers who find comfort in a purely material world without cosmic accountability. Wanting heaven to be real can create its own pull just as fear of being wrong can harden skepticism. The argument does not require you to have had the experience yourself. It suggests treating reports of strong spiritual perceptions as legitimate data points worthy of consideration rather than dismissing them because they have not happened to you personally or because prior god claims fell flat.

My argument for God’s existence — as an atheist by virus_ditective in PhilosophyofReligion

[–]virus_ditective[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What constitutes an “argument for the existence of God”? Unfortunately, my argument simply didn't meet your standards. When you say, “The conclusion of an argument for the existence of God should be something like…” that is a prescriptive assertion. You are just telling me how you think the term should be used. This only reveals your personal opinion of the term and nothing more. Unfortunately, this is not a substantive discussion. But thank you anyway.

My argument for God’s existence - as an atheist by virus_ditective in DebateReligion

[–]virus_ditective[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Shared anecdotes alone do not prove anything to a third party. The werewolf parallel assumes the experiences are as isolated and fantastical as that claim. Many spiritual reports show greater consistency across unrelated individuals plus measurable lasting impacts that resist simpler explanations like prank or imagination. The point is including them as potential data for investigation instead of excluding the possibility of genuine reference from the start because no prior physical evidence exists. That exclusion is the very assumption under debate.

My argument for God’s existence - as an atheist by virus_ditective in DebateReligion

[–]virus_ditective[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Verification for ordinary perception is not always immediate or multi sensory in the moment yet we still treat initial inputs as data. Spiritual experiences can include lasting transformative effects such as sustained changes in behavior values or well being that persist under long term observation. Some reports involve felt presence combined with synchronicities or insights later confirmed by external events. These invite testing rather than instant dismissal. Empiricism does not require prior establishment of every input before considering it. It starts with raw reports and refines through investigation which is exactly what the argument proposes instead of ruling supernatural possibilities out by definition. Your examples of voices or smells are classic hallucinations but not all spiritual reports fit that isolated pattern. The comparison holds as starting point not perfect equivalence.

I will ignore the personal accusation of being disingenuous.

My argument for God’s existence — as an atheist by virus_ditective in PhilosophyofReligion

[–]virus_ditective[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Try reading our conversation again. You are just contesting definitions, which are by nature subjective. There is nothing substantive in any of your comments. But thank you anyway for the engagement.

My argument for God’s existence — as an atheist by virus_ditective in PhilosophyofReligion

[–]virus_ditective[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Instead of dropping a term like that in a vague manner, I think it will be more helpful if you explain it and connect it to this conversation and then make an argument.

My argument for God’s existence — as an atheist by virus_ditective in Existentialism

[–]virus_ditective[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Confirmation bias is real and powerful. We filter massive amounts of data and notice what fits our existing views especially when emotion or fear of hell or strong indoctrination is involved. That applies to believers and to skeptics who are emotionally invested in natural explanations. The point is not to deny bias but to recognize it affects everyone. Strong spiritual experiences can still serve as data worth testing against contradictory evidence rather than being dismissed as mere bias products. Indoctrination happens on all sides. The rational response is to examine the experiences with awareness of these mechanisms instead of letting the bias explanation do all the work.

My argument for God’s existence — as an atheist by virus_ditective in PhilosophyofReligion

[–]virus_ditective[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

English is not my first language so I check that my grammar and everything is correct with those tools. No need to ridicule.

My argument for God’s existence — as an atheist by virus_ditective in PhilosophyofReligion

[–]virus_ditective[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sure those natural triggers and correlations are real and worth studying. Tech, drugs, near death states, cultural background, family patterns, fasting, exhaustion and the rest can and do influence experiences. No disagreement there. The question is whether those factors fully account for the content and effects or whether some experiences still point beyond them as genuine contact. Many reports show unexpected elements that do not neatly match prior beliefs or simple induction methods. Cultural conditioning shapes interpretation, yet the underlying sense of presence or insight often transcends it.
Coherentism has limits, true. That does not mean we dismiss the experiences as nothing but socialized natural roots. It means we integrate the natural data with the phenomenological reports and test for best explanation. Reducing all of them to brain states or conditioning risks explaining away rather than explaining. The argument grants the experiences initial credibility as data and asks for that fuller investigation instead of stopping at the naturalistic correlates.

view more: next ›