Appologies for my grammatical errors. I’m negleting proof-reading; and there is a dragon of sorts behind me - roomate’s screaming child. 
Every time I’ve sensed God, I’ve felt a vast, benevolent intellegent force (for lack of a better term). The circumstances surrounding it are always similar.
With regards to the perceive/experience/etc debate I see rising, my two cents: You experience tactile input, you percieve a sensation. Thus, a person experiences a scent, a vision, a tactile feeling. Then, in their minds, a person percieves it: they interpret pure tactile experiences and turn them into ideas and sensations that makes sense.
With regards to the OP: I don’t believe in any sort of self-existant higher power. I do, however, believe in a ‘big picture’, a web of interconnectedness that ties every single organism in this universe together, and that the earth in and of itself is, in a sense, alive. The earth is the one common medium: it is the one thing that we (we being ‘living organisms’) are all reliant on. It gives us life but without us, it would not exist in the way it does.
I believe that through meditation one can reach a sort of inner peace, and feel this inner-connectedness, feeling the way that energy flows from the smallest bacteria to the largest animal to the tallest tree. If I had to group myself with an established religion, I’d be Buddhist, but I’m not. I believe that there is no higher power other than that which surrounds us in nature: the energy of existance is the only higher power.
I may not be making my point as specific as I should.
I’m referring to causes that are equal in every way.
Also.
Perception is not emotion.
The perceptive causes I am referring to are of a physical nature. As in, when I see red, it comes from a source where the pigmentation allows for such a color to be produced.
Or when I hear a bark it is from the overpassing air over the vocal chords of a dog.
This is not familiarity, but equal consistency of causal value.
I know this only because I can trace it back to such origins.
How do you know that you perceive God?
With regards to the perceive/experience/etc debate I see rising, my two cents: You experience tactile input, you percieve a sensation. Thus, a person experiences a scent, a vision, a tactile feeling. Then, in their minds, a person percieves it: they interpret pure tactile experiences and turn them into ideas and sensations that makes sense.
With regards to the OP: I don’t believe in any sort of self-existant higher power. I do, however, believe in a ‘big picture’, a web of interconnectedness that ties every single organism in this universe together, and that the earth in and of itself is, in a sense, alive. The earth is the one common medium: it is the one thing that we (we being ‘living organisms’) are all reliant on. It gives us life but without us, it would not exist in the way it does.
I believe that through meditation one can reach a sort of inner peace, and feel this inner-connectedness, feeling the way that energy flows from the smallest bacteria to the largest animal to the tallest tree. If I had to group myself with an established religion, I’d be Buddhist, but I’m not. I believe that there is no higher power other than that which surrounds us in nature: the energy of existance is the only higher power.
Maybe I’m not making myself clear, either.
I just do. It’s not something that can be explained to someone who never has and/or doesn’t want to experience it.
Also, when did I suggest that perception is emotion? And what does that have to do with anything?
**
How does the speed of light feel?
Also, how do you know that you have not fabricationally installed the ability to experience such an event, than rather environmentally stimulated.
In other words, is the origin of such an experience created by your mind, or externally?
**
So it a sense that, without being explained exists, does not?
Can god be perceived without having prior knowledge that he may be?
It was a preemptive strike, however, there were no weapons of mass destruction.
Lilairen, how wonderful! I also enjoy centering, and know what you mean about that fleeting glimpse ofunderstanding - if that’s what you meant. 
And that’s what the elements I believe in are - different forms of akasha - perfectly balanced god/goddess energy. I always think it’s interesting to learn of other Pagan beliefs!
I don’t perceive:[ul][li]75°F[/li][li]addition[/li][li]my own birth[/li][li]my brain[/ul]yet I am fairly confident that they are not figments of my imagination. I suppose, in principle, someone could open up my head and find sawdust, and some dopers might even testify that this would not surprise them (;)), but I don’t perceive my brain yet I would actually be quite surprised if it wasn’t there.[/li]
Not, “I sense what I have been taught to call red, and explained it by appeal to pigmentation”? I don’t think your demarcation is as clear as you present it.
…
For my own beliefs, I don’t perceive my goddess, I have personified a metaphysical perspective and named it.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by erislover *
**I don’t perceive:[ul][li]75°F[/li][/quote]
**
Your feeling of touch does.
It is quantified in the value of 75°
[quote]
**[li]addition[/li][/quote]
**
Addition does not exist, it is only a measurement.
Much like temperature does not exist beyond it’s value.
[quote]
**[li]my own birth[/li][/quote]
**
You “don’t” because you are not experiencing it now.
However.
You “did”.
Unless you were stillborn.
[quote]
**[li]my brain[/ul]yet I am fairly confident that they are not figments of my imagination. I suppose, in principle, someone could open up my head and find sawdust, and some dopers might even testify that this would not surprise them (;)), but I don’t perceive my brain yet I would actually be quite surprised if it wasn’t there.[/li][/quote]
**
Because you do not perceive something does not mean it is inperceivable. A method can be readily explained to you as to how you can achieve such perception.
That is the difference here.
**
Awaiting support.
That’s fine and dandy.
But the conversation at hand is one that is inclusive of an entity that is not physically or metaphysically explainable.
I don’t know. I don’t claim to have entirely reached that point, nor do I think that the speed of light is relevant to what I said. The speed of light is a man-made measurement.
How do I know, without any doubt? I don’t. I believe that it is a feeling, that comes from getting in a certain state of mind. Part of that, obviously, must come from within. But I don’t think that it is entirely internal. No proof of this, simply an intuitive gut feeling. My guess is its similar to the same feeling that those who believe in the traditional Judeo-Christian God have about the existence of their God: no proof, just a feeling.
The origin, I think, is in your mind. You need to want and work for that experience. Again, I don’t think it’s simply an imagined feeling, but you need to put a conscious effort into getting it.
**
Well, you mentioned how via meditation, one can achieve “feeling the way that energy flows from”.
Energy flows at the speed of light.
Just wondering what that feels like.
Or maybe you can elaborate on what you mean by that.
**
Some may call that “psychosis”.
**
I agree.
But I call that feeling a psychosis.
So let me get this straight.
You know it exists.
You don’t know how it is perceived by you.
It is in your mind.
It is not imagined.
To me, this sounds as real as the purple dragon behind me.
Anyway they want to – ain’t faith a wonderful thing? Not being of the faithful persuationl myslef, I suppose I’m missing out on what other people imagine.
BTW, how, exactly, does one use reason against faith? 'cause isn’t that what all theological debates boil down to? And yes, that is most certainly a rethorical question. You don’t – use reason that is.
Just to throw in another idea:
Suppose an experience of God (for lack of a better term) results from stimulation of some neural pathways by a supernatural force (or by some other force that we are not aware can directly stimulate these neural pathways).
This hypothesized force might be amenable to scientific analysis if we could isolate and measure it, but for now that hasn’t happened.
Doesn’t mean such a force doesn’t exist.
Oddly enough, also doesn’t mean God exists. (The neural stimulation could result in the illusion that one has communed with the divine; it might be no more than a few stray cosmic rays hitting a sensitive circuit.)
Would this be perception or experience or what?
(Old philosophical argument about whether perception is primary.)
Nevertheless, I do not see, taste, touch, smell, or hear 75°. I feel heat, I see marks on a thermometer, but I do not sense 75°.
A figment?
Am I just to take your word for this? I don’t remember it. I’ve concluded that I did sense it at the time, much like some people have concluded a god/dess(s) exists from various sensations.
Interesting claim. Given this, how do you discount gods?
For which, that your demarcation is not sufficiently rigorous, or that you sense red and infer pigmentation from it (not that you sense pigmentation)?
I missed that part of the OP.
You are right, it can not be explain, only experienced.
I don’t think the words used are that important. Words are only symbols for communication and will never be able to totally explain experience. I know God exists because I have experienced Him. The unconditional love, peace, and knowledge brought by the experience of God is awesome. It can not be explained to others, it is personal, it is real.
Millions of people have experienced God, it is not that rare. Anyone can that really wants too.
There is a great deal more to life than can be measured.
Love
**
Yes you do.
You feel 75° through your sense of touch.
You may not be able to quantify the value of it in the measurement of degrees without an instrument, but you do feel it.
I can hear 2500 decibels of sound. Though I may not be able to perceive it as measurable semantical value.
**
A placemarking system; purely conceptual. Much like time. It does not exist.
**
Memory of perception has nothing to do with whether you’ve ever perceived an event or not. You were born. You reacted to your environment by breathing. Therefore, you perceived, and experienced it.
**
My Claim: Because you do not perceive something does not mean it is inperceivable.
How I discount gods: Gods are inperceivable. I have explained perception and experience. I suppose this is where it becomes circular.
My claim, Because you do not perceive something does not mean it is inperceivable, means nothing more than If it it there, it can be found - if it is not there, then it cannot be found.
God cannot be found, in such a context as perception.
It is the spirit of this debate.
If not, then I will submit that I, myself, am God, and end it all here.
Tell me, EJ, how do you know that Lord Ashtar’s 5 senses are any more reliable than (his/her) “spiritual sense?” How are you certain that (he/she) isn’t imagining everything?
Speaking of which, how do you know that your own 5 senses are reliable?
I submit that Lord Ashtar’s “spiritual sense” is just as real to (him/her) as her 5 senses. (By the way, sorry about the pronoun unclarity.)