Theism, magical thinking and CAM.

[Bruce Burleson]

Which one is god? The experience or the objective reality? How can one experience anything objective? Experience is subjective.

A scientist observing bacteria under a microscope experiences something objective. He sees the bacteria, which is objective. His observation of it is subjective - it happens in his brain. God is objective. My experience of God is subjective. Does this help?

The scientist can call someone else over, let them use the microscope, and they can compare observations. Pictures, measurements and further experiments can follow, and can be replicated in someone else's lab...

Not the same at all...

Of course they are not the same thing - an analogy is never "the same thing." But it is similar in the sense that if we are going to talk about anything objective (bacteria, God, Paraguayan cheerleaders), our subjective experience gets involved. The scientist describes the bacteria, which involves his subjective experience. Anything filtered through the brain has an element of subjectivity to it.

[Animavore]

How can you tell the difference between experiencing God and experiencing something in your head?

Strictly speaking, all experience is in the head, since it occurs in the brain, whatever the stimulus. The experience of God is, therefore, a particular form of experience in the head. For me, the thing that sets it apart from other experiences is the sense of divine presence, the idea that someone else is there. Try to imagine the differences between looking a photo of a loved one, looking at a video of a loved one, and actually being in the loved one's presence. Focusing on the experience itself, you have a progressively fuller sense of personal presence in these cases, even if you remove the sense of smell from the experience of the physical presence of the loved one. There is a more tangible quality to the actual experience. That approximates what I personally experience, a sense that God is actually there, as opposed to just thinking about God or hearing someone else talk about God.

Holy crap! Have you considered seeing someone about this?

[hiyymer]

Yet many of the characteristics of the observed bacteria are not part of the bacteria but are supplied by the brain; color, apparent solidity, etc. So that's not really the objective bacteria either. The objective bacteria must be only the aspects of the bacteria that can be shown to be out there independent of our experience.

Seriously, how can anything be "shown" independent of our experience. Once you "show" it, in any form whatsoever, we process it through our brains and it becomes part of our experience. You can show me 2+2=4, and I experience that in my brain. You can't separate the objective from the subjective once you attempt to observe it. So, there is an objective God (IMO), and I experience him subjectively (IMO).

Inductive reasoning. What's really out there. Could it cause this thing I see independent of why I see it. People used to think color was an objective characteristic of the thing out there. How did we determine that color is created by the brain? Has anyone ever seen an atom? Are atoms objectively real?

[MrFungus420]

If it's objective, it can be demonstrated in some fashion.

What you are describing is indistinguishable from Sam Berkowitz believing that dogs were possessed by demons telling him to kill people.

The technology to observe and record every single objective reality in the universe and beyond the universe does not yet exist, so you are wrong. We cannot demonstrate the existence of every single planet in the universe, for example. We cannot yet demonstrate exactly what dark matter and dark energy are. You are assuming that science is much more advanced than it actually is.

Dark Matter has been mapped by it's gravitational effects. Yes, it is unknown. That is why it is called "dark" matter. But it has a demonstrable effect.

You are claiming an objective experience...here...on this planet.

What is it that you are objectively experiencing? How are you experiencing it?

If it is an objective experience, you should be able to answer those questions. If it is an objective experience, then most people should be able to have approximately the same experience about the same way that you have it.

And don't try to use the normal red herring about emotions. Emotions are purely internal, you are claiming something external.

There are many factors that distinguish my experience of God from David Berkowitz' experience of demon-possessed dogs. For one thing, I don't kill people and am not in prison. That's a fairly big difference.

Not especially. That's mainly because you don't believe that your god has told you to kill people. If you believed that you were commanded by God to kill certain people, wouldn't you obey God's divine command to you?

You believe that your experiences of a god are real.
David Berkowitz believed that his experiences of demons were real.

Both beliefs seem to be based on nothing more than a subjective feeling.

[MrFungus420]

So, there is an objective God (IMO),

This statement is based on what?

If you want to say that, in your opinion there is a god, that's fine. It's your opinion. But once you claim something to be objective, it is no longer an opinion. Objective is pretty much the opposite of an opinion.

Objective = Red is a wavelength of light about 650 nm.
Subjective = How I see red. How you see red. (the classic "maybe your "red" looks like my "green")

Objective = Tetrahydrocannabinol acts on certain neuroreceptors causing a euphoric sensation.
Subjective = This is some good shit!

[hiyymer]

So, there is an objective God (IMO),

This statement is based on what?

If you want to say that, in your opinion there is a god, that's fine. It's your opinion. But once you claim something to be objective, it is no longer an opinion. Objective is pretty much the opposite of an opinion.

Objective = Red is a wavelength of light about 650 nm.
Subjective = How I see red. How you see red. (the classic "maybe your "red" looks like my "green")

Objective = Tetrahydrocannabinol acts on certain neuroreceptors causing a euphoric sensation.
Subjective = This is some good shit!

Websters:
objective = "having reality independent of the mind"

Objective basically means that it exists independent of our experience. That is what the "scientific method" is about. Doesn't mean that scientific explanations are infallibly correct or complete. Just the best objective explanation that we have. God is an explanation, but not a scientific explanation because there is no inductive reasoned basis apart from our experience that supports it. No one has devised a controlled experiment that says if god is there then this would have to happen. If dark matter were there then that would explain why the orbiting of the suns in a galaxy don't obey our understanding of gravitational forces based on the identifiable mass of the galaxy. And dark matter is not inconsistent with everything else we can inductively ascertain about the cosmology of the universe. But it's just one possible explanation and far less well supported than say natural selection.

What I object to is the idea that we actually live in that objective reality. All meaning morality and experience of us being us is subjective. Objective reality is completely nihilistic. We can't escape the fact that we live inside the mechanism. We have no choice but to embrace our experience. If we threw out everything subjective there would be no meaning left. Just the genes replicating. Singling out god for the scientific test of objective existence is nonsense. God is a representation of the brain that points to something, and is transparently real (like color) for 90% of the world's population. I don't have a god buddy in my experience. But that doesn't mean everyone else should get rid of theirs. I have lots of other stuff in my experience that doesn't objectively exist. If I didn't I'd be catatonic.

[Svartalf]

Well, any statement that predicates the objective existence of something, meaning it should be observable by non spiritual means, and that appends (IMO) is terminally flawed and false. Or did I see any proper evidence that Dog had been witnessed and reported, observed and recorded by standards going what amounts to word of mouth, flawed through innumerable copying by fallible clerks (how come the True and Inerrant Word of Dog could be recorded is so many divergent and in so many cases erroneous ways?), and varying translations?

Still waiting for decent evidence of objective existence of Dog. (and no, not Canis Lupus subs familiaris)

[floppit]

Seriously, how can anything be "shown" independent of our experience. Once you "show" it, in any form whatsoever, we process it through our brains and it becomes part of our experience. You can show me 2+2=4, and I experience that in my brain. You can't separate the objective from the subjective once you attempt to observe it. So, there is an objective God (IMO), and I experience him subjectively (IMO).

I'm not sure why I'm doing this but....

Earlier in the thread you said you can distinguish between anecdote and empirical evidence - given the above quote what exactly do you think the difference is?

[Bruce Burleson]

Dark Matter has been mapped by it's gravitational effects. Yes, it is unknown. That is why it is called "dark" matter. But it has a demonstrable effect.

You are claiming an objective experience...here...on this planet.

What is it that you are objectively experiencing? How are you experiencing it?

The phrase "objectively experiencing" is meaningless. All experience is subjective, because it happens in the brain. I've already told you that the objective stimulus is God, and the subjective experience is my experience with God. I've already told you that God is encountered through revelation, not through scientific experiment or observation. I've already told you that your a priori rejection of revelation as a source of information is effectively cutting you off from the experience of God. I'm sorry, I can't help you anymore.

If it is an objective experience, you should be able to answer those questions. If it is an objective experience, then most people should be able to have approximately the same experience about the same way that you have it.

Not so. I can stand in front of a piece of art and have a completely different experience from someone else. The piece of art is the objective reality. The experience is subjective. Some people have no experience at all. The beauty of the art has not been "revealed" to them.

There are many factors that distinguish my experience of God from David Berkowitz' experience of demon-possessed dogs. For one thing, I don't kill people and am not in prison. That's a fairly big difference.

Not especially. That's mainly because you don't believe that your god has told you to kill people. If you believed that you were commanded by God to kill certain people, wouldn't you obey God's divine command to you?

No, I would not. I would assume that I had not experienced God. What I understand about God is at least partially informed by the teachings of Jesus, who never instructed anyone to kill anyone, and who counseled us to love our enemies. So that sets certain limits on divine revelation, IMO.

You believe that your experiences of a god are real.
David Berkowitz believed that his experiences of demons were real.

Considering his actions, perhaps he did experience demons. Have you considered that possibility?

[Bruce Burleson]

Well, any statement that predicates the objective existence of something, meaning it should be observable by non spiritual means, and that appends (IMO) is terminally flawed and false. Or did I see any proper evidence that Dog had been witnessed and reported, observed and recorded by standards going what amounts to word of mouth, flawed through innumerable copying by fallible clerks (how come the True and Inerrant Word of Dog could be recorded is so many divergent and in so many cases erroneous ways?), and varying translations?

Still waiting for decent evidence of objective existence of Dog. (and no, not Canis Lupus subs familiaris)

Your statement that anything objective should be observable by non-spiritual means is an unjustified a priori assumption. You do not know that this is true, nor can you prove it, even by non-spiritual means. God is encountered through revelation, because that is how he has chosen to reveal himself. My statement that an objective God exists and can be known by revelation is no less valid than your statement that an objective God should be observable by non-spiritual means.

[Bruce Burleson]

Seriously, how can anything be "shown" independent of our experience. Once you "show" it, in any form whatsoever, we process it through our brains and it becomes part of our experience. You can show me 2+2=4, and I experience that in my brain. You can't separate the objective from the subjective once you attempt to observe it. So, there is an objective God (IMO), and I experience him subjectively (IMO).

I'm not sure why I'm doing this but....

Earlier in the thread you said you can distinguish between anecdote and empirical evidence - given the above quote what exactly do you think the difference is?

I'm not sure why you are doing this, either. Empirical evidence is usually something that can be repeated by experiment, although not always. An anecdote is usually about an historical event, and historical events cannot be repeated. Now, you can have an anecdote about a lab experiment, but that should be repeatable. But generally, I think of empirical evidence as something that can be shown by repeated experiment, and anecdotal evidence is about non-repeatable historical events. Please observe, however, that even the observation of a repeatable experiment has a subjective element to it, as the experimenter has to register the event in his brain and then record it.

[Bruce Burleson]

So, there is an objective God (IMO),

This statement is based on what?

1) The NT accounts of Jesus and his works and teachings;
2) the experience of others;
3) my personal experience.

I have the subjective experience of an oak tree being in my front yard. That is my primary basis for concluding that an objective oak tree is actually there.

[Bruce Burleson]

How can you tell the difference between experiencing God and experiencing something in your head?

Strictly speaking, all experience is in the head, since it occurs in the brain, whatever the stimulus. The experience of God is, therefore, a particular form of experience in the head. For me, the thing that sets it apart from other experiences is the sense of divine presence, the idea that someone else is there. Try to imagine the differences between looking a photo of a loved one, looking at a video of a loved one, and actually being in the loved one's presence. Focusing on the experience itself, you have a progressively fuller sense of personal presence in these cases, even if you remove the sense of smell from the experience of the physical presence of the loved one. There is a more tangible quality to the actual experience. That approximates what I personally experience, a sense that God is actually there, as opposed to just thinking about God or hearing someone else talk about God.

Holy crap! Have you considered seeing someone about this?

Yes, I have, and many of them have converted to Christianity.

[Animavore]

How can you tell the difference between experiencing God and experiencing something in your head?

Strictly speaking, all experience is in the head, since it occurs in the brain, whatever the stimulus. The experience of God is, therefore, a particular form of experience in the head. For me, the thing that sets it apart from other experiences is the sense of divine presence, the idea that someone else is there. Try to imagine the differences between looking a photo of a loved one, looking at a video of a loved one, and actually being in the loved one's presence. Focusing on the experience itself, you have a progressively fuller sense of personal presence in these cases, even if you remove the sense of smell from the experience of the physical presence of the loved one. There is a more tangible quality to the actual experience. That approximates what I personally experience, a sense that God is actually there, as opposed to just thinking about God or hearing someone else talk about God.

Holy crap! Have you considered seeing someone about this?

Yes, I have, and many of them have converted to Christianity.

Sure they did.

[MrFungus420]

Dark Matter has been mapped by it's gravitational effects. Yes, it is unknown. That is why it is called "dark" matter. But it has a demonstrable effect.

You are claiming an objective experience...here...on this planet.

What is it that you are objectively experiencing? How are you experiencing it?

The phrase "objectively experiencing" is meaningless. All experience is subjective, because it happens in the brain. I've already told you that the objective stimulus is God,

No. that is your subjective interpretation of a feeling.

and the subjective experience is my experience with God. I've already told you that God is encountered through revelation,

Just like David Berkowitz's knowledge that was revealed to him by the demons.

not through scientific experiment or observation. I've already told you that your a priori rejection of revelation as a source of information is effectively cutting you off from the experience of God.

What I reject is your claim that it is objective. You are talking about something that is entirely within your mind. You are talking about something that nobody can verify in any way, shape or form.

If you accept personal revelation as a valid source of information, then you accept that David Berkowitz was really talking to demons.

If it is an objective experience, you should be able to answer those questions. If it is an objective experience, then most people should be able to have approximately the same experience about the same way that you have it.

Not so. I can stand in front of a piece of art and have a completely different experience from someone else. The piece of art is the objective reality. The experience is subjective. Some people have no experience at all. The beauty of the art has not been "revealed" to them.

I think I know part of the problem, we're kind of talking across each other. We are using the word "experience" differently.

When I say "objective experience", I am talking about the actual, physical experience, what you do. In this case, the objective experience is looking at the art. The subjective is your opinion of it and how it makes you feel.

There are many factors that distinguish my experience of God from David Berkowitz' experience of demon-possessed dogs. For one thing, I don't kill people and am not in prison. That's a fairly big difference.

Not especially. That's mainly because you don't believe that your god has told you to kill people. If you believed that you were commanded by God to kill certain people, wouldn't you obey God's divine command to you?

No, I would not. I would assume that I had not experienced God.

No. I said if you believed that God personally commanded you to do so (like God commanding Abraham to sacrifice Isaac).

God appears before you. You are overwhelmed by his divine presence. There is no doubt in your heart, mind or soul that this IS God before you. There is absolutely no question to it, you KNOW that this IS God.

What I understand about God is at least partially informed by the teachings of Jesus, who never instructed anyone to kill anyone, and who counseled us to love our enemies. So that sets certain limits on divine revelation, IMO.

At this point I have to ask: Do you believe that God is eternal and perfect?

You believe that your experiences of a god are real.
David Berkowitz believed that his experiences of demons were real.

Considering his actions, perhaps he did experience demons. Have you considered that possibility?

No. Magic doesn't exist. Therefore, magical beings cannot magically possess dogs and magically have those dogs magically tell someone to do things.