That explains why no one ever interpreted night paralysis as abduction by aliens.
Your cat and computer screen stay around. Does God? Please describe an experiment with God that would determine if the experience represents God or is just internal?
I’ve always suggested asking him if P = NP. He’ll know. (And a counter example or a proof.) And don’t tell me he doesn’t want to give evidence he exists - he’s showing up in your head, right?
Except that the entity supports gay rights or doesn’t. You hardly have a blank slate wrt God. If a lot of people had the same God dream at the same time, that would be evidence. You seeing the God you expect to see isn’t.
Nothing was what I expected. And I didn’t “see” God. I can’t try to describe it here again. I’ve done it before and it’s pointless.
At the time that it happened, I wasn’t even thinking in religious terms. That’s how different it was from any religious concepts that I had.
God was/is not a he or a she to ask question of. But there was no distinction between “things.” I have no idea if that in any way answers your question. It didn’t come from God.
Human’s known propensity for having experiences which don’t accord with reality (and I include myself in that) makes this unconvincing to me. Particularly when one considers the extraordinary standard of proof I consider appropriate when postulating something so utterly out of the ordinary as a god.
Any basic reading on human perception will teach you that the idea that people are necessarily capable of avoiding misperception is, to put it mildly, somewhat misplaced.
It’s about not multiplying entities beyond necessity. Things for which there is no objective evidence but which you have subjective experience of does not necessitate postulating them as entities when an already existing entity, namely your imagination, will suffice. Objectively verifiable things necessitate postulating them to be an entity, because imagination will not suffice.
Furthermore, a god is never a simple thing to postulate at all. I’m sure “god” rolls off the tongue glibly. But theists only consider postulating a god to be simple because they are so habituated to the idea they don’t stop and think what a god actually would be. I don’t know what you believe your particular god is like or capable of, but if it is capable of doing half the things that theists tend to attribute to their gods, they are the most complex creature ever conceived of. That you may not stop to think what it would take to design and construct a universe for example doesn’t mean that a god could be simple. To say that postulating a god is simpler than postulating that you imagine a god is laughable.
Billions of moths fly towards flames. That’s not because there is a single force pushing them towards flames. That’s because they all have the same mental characteristic, which causes each independently to exhibit the same behaviour.
And if that isn’t a complete explanation (and it isn’t) the balance of the explanation lies in the fact that your “billions of autonomous figments of the imagination” don’t match up, which is precisely what you’d expect if there is no one god, or indeed any god at all
I’m sure you’re not, for example, going to argue that what your god tells you is appropriate behaviour is the same as what the guys who wrote the old testament say their god told them.
Fine. I’m always prepared to accept that theists’ sense of right and wrong does not derive from a god but from themselves. It’s a pity not all theists accept that.
As to the rest of your post, well, I’m not going to get in trouble with the Mods again in this thread, so I’ll leave it up to others to judge my posts, OK?
Let’s just say I find it … amusing … that you waited until long aftertom stepped in on me and mswas before replying with exactly the same kind of post that got us (deservedly) yellow-carded.
Not in the slightest. I applaud it.
This might come as a surprise, but I don’t really think so, I’m afraid. I don’t think people on the whole are educated and empowered enough to really embrace atheism.
Let me give you another example of what I mean - I am an anarchist. I firmly believe that anarchism is the ideal form of government. But I don’t agitate for it and I don’t think it’ll happen until something changes in humanity itself. Now, we’ve had those kind of changes before - tool use, language, writing. I think some sort of large-scale future change is inevitable, and I believe it is the kind of change that will facilitate anarchism if approached right. I also think it will facilitate atheism.
You say that you know that what you experienced was real and not an hallucination, delusion or dream. What specifically makes you different from every other person in history that couldn’t?
So, if people have delusions, the only ones who should do anything about it are those people, because only they can determine whether the experience is real or not?
No, you said that they were your experiences, and that you(and, I presume, you alone) should be the one to determine what to do about them. This is a belief you share with just about everyone who has delusions or mistakes their dreams for reality.
Except for the Muslims and Catholics, right? As you said in post #303 you think both groups are wrong about the nature of God. So, presumably they’re not capable of intuitively sensing the truth when God communicates with them the way you are. Why do you think that is?
And {in case you didn’t notice} with anyone who has any experience that influences their world view and affects their future actions. That is to say, most people on the planet. Go figure!
Do you mean experiences that have an objective reality, such as speeches, acts of kindness by others and the like? Or do you mean experiences that pertain to you and you alone, like voices in your head and feelings from out of nowhere?
