Prove(or provide overwhelming evidence) to me the existance, or non existance of God

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by ckweb


Is this a surprise Fez? Or is everything that exists only in existence because you have knowledge of it? You'll understand if I disagree, won't you?

What I believe is in nothing. There is no higher being to direct what can be logically explained by the processes of science and logic. Fundamentally, I don't see any reason for a higher being.

[ckweb]

Originally posted by Fez


What I believe is in nothing. There is no higher being to direct what can be logically explained by the processes of science and logic. Fundamentally, I don't see any reason for a higher being.

Okay. I know this already; it's very similar to the first thing you wrote in this thread.

I have a different belief.

So, what's your point?

Anyways, it is totally irrelevant to the objection you've raised above where you seemed to indicate that your knowledge of something was a prerequisite to the existence of that thing. Are you squirming out of your earlier objection? Or, trying to deflect attention away from it?

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by ckweb
Anyways, it is totally irrelevant to the objection you've raised above where you seemed to indicate that your knowledge of something was a prerequisite to the existence of that thing. Are you squirming out of your earlier objection? Or, trying to deflect attention away from it?

Say what? If I were you I would work on the clarity of sentences and try not to sound like you are typing up a political speech because people will not listen to you. Believe me.

Knowledge is attained by visual and abstract findings. Proving god is neither visual nor abstract nor can it be accomplished.

[ckweb]

Originally posted by Fez


Say what? If I were you I would work on the clarity of sentences and try not to sound like you are typing up a political speech because people will not listen to you. Believe me.

Knowledge is attained by visual and abstract findings. Proving god is neither visual nor abstract nor can it be accomplished.

Read my posts. I said some time ago that you can not prove or disprove God except through experience.

You then said you found my post laughable and so you asked, "How can you have an experience with god if you don't even know if he/she/it exists or not?"

I then pointed out that you could have an experience with a god you don't know exists because your knowledge is not a prerequisite for the existence of that god. To which you responded, "Oh really?" I then asked if this surprised you and reiterated my disagreement with you.

You then restated your beliefs, which has nothing to do with your initial objection/question of my statement that God is found through experience, which is why I suggested you were evading the point.

BTW, I write the way I write. I get enough responses to my posts.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Fez


Say what? If I were you I would work on the clarity of sentences and try not to sound like you are typing up a political speech because people will not listen to you. Believe me.

Fez it would help a lot if you learned the diference between between clear and being clearly wrong.

The existence of a god or the non-existence is not related to your belief. Or Ckwebs either. It either exists or it doesn't barring some sort of Schroedinger's Cat type superposition that is being sustained by the absence of evidence in either direction.

Knowledge is attained by visual and abstract findings. Proving god is neither visual nor abstract nor can it be accomplished.

Are atoms visible? Are they absract?

They are in fact neither. They are real and they are inhereintly non-visible due their size and the frequencies of light that we see in. You can't make god disapear in a puff of illogic any more than Ckweb can make one appear by claiming some sort of completly undefined experience.

Of course some have claimed to have seen god which would mean that god is visible. Then someone claimed to have spoken to the devil through his dog Son Of Sam. I don't he actually did that any more than I think Abraham met Jehovah but both a claimed to have happened by at least one person each. I cannot disprove either of them. Not even the serial killer despite the fact that he was obviously schizophrenic. Maybe the devil and Jehovah both choose to only reveal themselves to the deranged.

Then again maybe there is a Giant Invisible Orbiting Aardvark on the other side of the Moon and its in charge of everything. I don't think we have anyone believeing in that around here but we do have someone that thinks there was a Cosmic Inspector #icantrememberbutithadalotofdigits. He got just as upset as the Creationist do when I pointed out the flaws in The Book of Urantia.

Much like how you got upset when Ckweb quite reasonably pointed out that gods existence is not dependent on your belief.

[XarXo]

God will exist as the reason that gives existance to the universe. Ancients compared IT with a verb, I suggest something better: logical nonsense

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by ckweb




Read my posts. I said some time ago that you can not prove or disprove God except through experience.

Actually you could a darn good job of proving that Jehovah was highly probable if you could prove the stories in Genesis were all real. Many of them entail physical impossibilities that even a highly advanced civilization would be extremely hard pressed to simulate.

You can't prove god even to yourself soley through personal experience unless you have an exceedingly loose concept of proof. One person is not enough. Nor are the personal experiences of others any good in corroborating your experiences. Some degree of repeatablily and testing would be needed to qualify as actualy proof. Now you may feel that your experience is adequate to convince you but it really doesn't constitute proof in anything remotely resembling a formal sense.

I am only interested in proofs that can be tested by others.

[ckweb]

Originally posted by Ethelred
Actually you could a darn good job of proving that Jehovah was highly probable if you could prove the stories in Genesis were all real. Many of them entail physical impossibilities that even a highly advanced civilization would be extremely hard pressed to simulate.

I do believe that some of the miracles described in Genesis and other books happened. However, the nature of the miracles is such that I have no way of proving them, especially to your satisfaction, short of having a time machine. As I've argued in a previous thread, the strongest evidence that exists in favour of some of the most profound biblical miracles are usually sociological and anthropological in nature. But, I've found that people are unwilling to accept these arguments and instead rely upon their own, often uneducated, explanations to account for the data.

Perhaps give me some insight, how would I go about proving the plagues of the Exodus; or, God's providence in the life of Israel; or, the deliverance of Jerusalem from the hands of Sennacherib in 701 B.C.E; or, the miracles of Jesus? What sort of proofs would you require? Doesn't the nature of these events allow you to propose an alternative explanation? What sort of physical evidence would remain of these events?

Originally posted by Ethelred
You can't prove god even to yourself soley through personal experience unless you have an exceedingly loose concept of proof. One person is not enough. Nor are the personal experiences of others any good in corroborating your experiences. Some degree of repeatablily and testing would be needed to qualify as actualy proof. Now you may feel that your experience is adequate to convince you but it really doesn't constitute proof in anything remotely resembling a formal sense.

While I see your point, and even to a certain degree agree with it, I put more weight on personal experience, whether my own or others, than you do. Personally, I have the conviction that much of what we take for granted as knowledge in this world is based upon our own experience or the experience of others. And as such, I am willing to give most people the benefit of the doubt in the absence of proof to the contrary. I do not think sufficient proof exists to invalidate the existence of God or the validity of the biblical text as an historical witness. You may say I'm putting the cart before the horse but I see it as putting a little bit of trust in the fact that the "fairly ordinary men" who wrote the Bible weren't out to mislead me but genuinely wrote their response to events that they had seen and experienced.

I find it interesting that you are asking for repeatable proof when we once had the following exchange:

Originally posted by ckweb
Not necessarily. Science can only test what can be reproduced.

Originally posted by Ethelred
False. Science includes many things that deal with non-reproducible events. Forensics is the science of studying events that should not be reproduced as in murders. Anthropology is a study of human activity both physical, cultural, and archeological. Medicine often deals with statistical analysis of events that occured in the past when dealing with plagues that no longer plague us.

In light of your views then, repeatablility should not be essential to your requirement for proof, right?

Anyways, I think to a certain extent the proof that consists of personal experience with God is repeatable, which is why I suggested you participate with a Christian friend in an attempt to gain the benefit of that experience. If I did not believe it were possible for you to have that experience to a degree sufficient to convince you of God's existence, I would not have suggested it.

Think of it this way . . . I know that my parents love me because as often as that question has been open to debate, my parents have responded in a way consistent with my understanding of love. Now, ask me to prove my parents love for me to you, and I would be very hard pressed. I have no objective basis on which to be certain of my claim; however, subjectively I am as convinced of it as I am of the objective reality of the existence of gravity. Likewise, with God, I can not prove the existence of God to you but my experiences, however much they might occasionally be open to debate and interpretation, convince me that in fact he does exist. It is a subjective truth I can not disavow any more than I could disavow the love my parents have for me.

Originally posted by Ethelred
I am only interested in proofs that can be tested by others.

One of the problems in our increasingly post-modern world is that "proof" has become so highly subjective. People, scholars and lay-people alike, have become so skilled at questioning the assumptions and presumptions that go into an argument that it undercuts the reliability of the argument and therefore allows people to maintain their own subjective opinions. Even in science, scientists are now able to refute experiments on the basis of the assumptions and presumptions that underlie the methodology, objectives, hypothesis, and synthesis of the experiments.

[Capt Dizle]

If God doesn't exist why do people talk about Him so much?

[ckweb]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
If God doesn't exist why do people talk about Him so much?

Would this qualify as a Koan?

[ckweb]

Originally posted by Ethelred
Actually you could a darn good job of proving that Jehovah was highly probable if you could prove the stories in Genesis were all real. Many of them entail physical impossibilities that even a highly advanced civilization would be extremely hard pressed to simulate.

I could provide strong evidence for the historical probability and authenticity of many biblical events, apart from the miracles and the early periods.

The patriarchs in Genesis are almost impossible to prove because they were nomads and hence no archaelogical evidence exists of their existence. Even so, many details in the narratives suggest their stories are authentically placed. The accounts are frequently used as starting points in all sorts of historical investigations: archaeological, geological, etc.

Again, the Exodus is difficult to prove. It involved a slave rebellion unsuccessfully put down by the Egyptian Pharaoh. It is not surprising no mention is made in Egyptian court records; empires of that time rarely if ever mentioned defeats. Although, interestingly, the Pharaohs do become more involved in Palestine after this time and the first mention of Israel is found in the Merneptah Stele (Merneptah was an Egyptian Pharaoh). In the stele, Merneptah boasts of his destruction of Israel and its seed.

The archaeological data for the conquest is all over the map; some supports the biblical account, some questions it, some appears to contradict it. There are all sorts of problems with the conquest. We'd spend tons of time arguing this one. Kenyon and Garstang are two of the most significant archaeologists to have done work on this topic.

There is no explicit archaeological data for the united monarchy. However, once you get below 1000 B.C.E., into the divided monarchies, archaeological data strongly supports the biblical record of the kings of Judah and Israel and its involvement with surrounding nations. I can provide examples if you want.

etc. etc.

[Ethelred]

I guess I will comment on parts of this thing now. Don't know about all of it yet. If you get to bottom and don't see me commenting on something you think I should have just mention it.

Originally posted by ckweb

I have heard that Catholicism leaves a bad taste in the mouth of many people; my brother-in-law and his twin were Catholics (their from Quebec so it's no surprise). Both them have alot of contempt for the Catholic Church; they are now Protestants after a long period of disbelief/unbelief. Perhaps, the Catholic Church wasn't the right place to embark upon the experience.

That sure is typical Protestant outlook. Frankly I have more respect for the Catholic Church than a lot of other christian religions. It has changed since Luther you know. I point this out because a surprising number of Protestants still rail away at the Church for things that haven't happened in since the Reformation.

Lots of ex-Protestants feel the same way about their former religions. Its normal. Thats why they quit in many instances. I think you will find a lot of Agnostics don't have those issues. Atheists maybe. Lots of them seem to have decided that god doesn't exist because they were inflamed about things in their former religions. I simply noticed that the main difference between Catholicism and ANY other religion is that I was raised in it instead the others. If the others were mere superstitions why Catholocism as well.

Transubstantiation (the host becoming the flesh of Jesus; the wine becoming his blood) is an exclusively Catholic tradition. Some Protestant Churches adhere to consubstantiation, which claims that both the original elements, the host and the wine as well as the flesh and blood, are present together. My tradition takes them for host and wine, nothing more (except perhaps a spiritual significance). Actually, we do not use the term "host" for obvious reasons; it's just the bread.

Its seems to me that the original idea behind Communion was most likely symbolic. Somehow it became more than that to a lot of people. Why is another question. Blatantly wrong headed thinking is nothing unique to Catholics.

About miracles and cures . . . There have been many documented cases of miracles and cures unexplained by science.

Poorly documented in almost all cases. People simply have a loose idea of what constitutes a miracle. Many people refer to the miracle of birth and really believe its miraculous. Low probability events do not constitute miracles. Wittness all the people claiming that Civ III is cheating when a tank is beaten by a spearman. Its the exact same kind of thinking. Something is unlikely so it must be caused by something other than the odds.

A real miracle is when something happens that is literally imposible not merely unlikely. Stopping the Sun in the sky would qualify. Raising the dead for real would qualify but we have no assurance that Lazarus was really dead even if the story is a real one. Considering other religions have the same basic story its quite possible it was grafted onto the Bible.

All miracles and cures demonstrate is that the world is more unpredictable than science sometimes lets us imagine.

More often they only show that people have a loose idea of what a miracle is. And a strange idea about the accuracy of medical predictions.

I think that is a pretty skeptical take on religious experience.

Considering that is based on reality and not on belief, I think its reasonable. If you want to think it an uwarranted degree of skepticism be my guest. I an fairly sure you would say the say things about other religions than christian ones. Are you not highly skeptical of them? I simply am skeptical to the same degree about yours as well.

Sure, the herd mentality is always present and at work in group settings but many Christians have searched themselves in earnest and come to a sharp, personal awareness that their beliefs are not rooted in that herd mentality but are heart-felt.

Few if any would have come up with those conclusion if not for their constant exposure to that same herd. If you were raised in a no religion environment would you really accept Christianity on the physical evidence and why would accept it over other religions that have every bit as much backing them. Mostly nothing just a christianity mostly has nothing but belief backing it.

I'm a lone ranger too and an academic-type; I haven't been to a church in a very long time. I've spent a great deal of time in introspection but I simply cannot deny the efficacy of my personal experiences that led me to faith in God in the first place. Given that the majority of my friends are non-Christian, I can assure you that I have wanted to lay aside my convictions and in that vein, I have tested them thoroughly. They have changed to a certain degree, matured might be more accurate, but the core remains.

I personally doubt that you have become a christian if you hadn't raised as one in the first place. Some do that but not many and even most of them were exposed to it to a fairly large degree all their life. I have found that most of the personal experiences are not really very convincing at best and that is one reason that most keep them personal.

People do have odd dreams and even hallucinations sometimes without drugs. They are not convincing to me. I get weird dreams if I am sleeping hot or dry. I now use a flourescent lamp and make sure I am adequately hydrated before I go to sleep. The proliferation of low heat lights will likely decrease the number of converts in the future.

Actually I am at least sort of seriuos on that. And on this as well, don't leave tungsten lights on over your bed if you have a problem with bad dreams.

You might do us all a public service!

Unfortunatly I think they prefer to work in relays. I can only go so long before I too am likely to start having hallucinations. I haven't stayed awake more than 48 hours yet and I sure hope don't do that. After thirty or so hours I start making a lot of mistakes. But my posts get funnier some of the time.

Originally posted by Ethelred
If the relationships claim that god is needed then it should be no surprise they often result in people accepting things that aren't real.

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying here. Please clarify, sorry.

If a persons relationships entail consistently dealing with an assertion that god is needed for the relationship than people are likely to accept that god as , if not actually real, as something to pretend is real. Peer pressure is a strong force on most. Especially the young. It even works on us Lone Ranger types occasionally.

Lots of men go to church just to keep their wives happy. Eventually they come to believe simply because their resistance is lowered through constant repetition over the years.

I can certainly understand your sentiment but the evidence comes through participating in the relationship. The relationship seems to develop best in daily life, prayer, and worship.

That last bit clearly requires a predispostion to believe. How the heck could you expect to worship something that I think is likely non-existent. Pretty darn sure in the case of any god other than a deist type.

Worship IS self-hypnosis.

I don't think that my experiences are the result of group pressure, sleep deprivation, or self-hypnosis; and I think you've taken progressively extreme examples to evade my initial suggestion. Personally, based upon our interactions in this forum and a gut feeling, I think you have the ability and independent character to withstand group pressure and self-hypnosis! Moreover, you've already stated that sleep deprivation won't work.

I could be kidding myself on sleep deprivation and you clearly don't know understand the self-hypnosis has nothing to do with others. Its deliberatly and intentionaly using suggestion on yourself. The classic is "Every day in every way I am getting better and better". Prayer of the rote kind may not do that but the personal kind you expressly recommend is EXACTLY the same process that is used in self-hypnosis except for the obvious relaxation parts.

A person can be hypnotized with going through the well known rituals that you see in movies and TV. It can be done subtly. Heck it can be done by accident. Can't remember the name but an entertainer used to do a fake hypnotism act. He told the subject to fake it when he got them up on stage. Not out loud of course. Then on one occasion a subject was bit easier to get under a real trance than most.

BTW, prayer, at least in my experience, is not self-hypnosis. In Protestant Churches, particularly the so-called low-churches, prayers are not recited. They are spoken personally and often individually.

That is exactly how one does self-hypnosis. Its SELF.

And while trying to develop a relationship with God is not going to give you physical proof (unless of course God does something dramatic), your experiences may become more valuable than physical proof.

This seems to be hard for you to deal with I can't see trying to devolop a relationship with the Giant Invisible Orbiting Aardvark either. I have to have the proof FIRST before I will try the self-brainwashing route. It is self-brainwashing even if you don't like the term. Convincing yourself that something is real without any evidence that it is real can be nothing else.

Like I said earlier on in this thread, most Christians believe for two reasons: (1) the legacy of testimony in the Bible as well as family and friends that attest to God's activity in history,

Believing in someone elses belief. Bandwagon stuff. Very popular in politics as well.

and (2) their own personal experience with that God.

That is NOT their reason. I say that because belief MUST come first for that. You can't have a personal experience with something that most likely doesn't exist unless you allready believe.

It might take now precisely because you are not an impressionable child anymore and you won't be able to shrug it off as an adolescent experience. You did not know any better back then; now you are informed. You are skeptic, with a good mind, many resources, and lots of questions that would need answering. This is the reason the experience would benefit you now more than it did in the past.

You really don't understand anyone not believing. I have no desire to engage in what looks exactly like brainwashing myself. I am more infomed now that is true. I see even more reason than ever to consider christianity just another superstition. If you ever look at it from the outside you may also see that. Your whole life and belief system is structured around a belief in something that is really no more evident than any other religion. Some are more savage. Some are less so. But all depend on a belief instead of evidence. Well some of the Eastern Religions are much more of a way at looking at things than they are like Western god based religion but they still have the idea of mystical things.

He "was" one. Did he pass away? If so, sorry to hear it.

I just haven't seen him. Who knows maybe he is dead. He simply became someone that couldn't do anything without claiming that was proof of god. He even thought god controlled the dice when we played Dungeons and Dragons. He was always an extremist in whatever he did. Very odd for an engineer to be that way. They usually are very conservative.

Catholicism is an interesting breed of Christianity. It has so much history and strength; in some respects, it has a certain doctrinal integrity. But, on the other hand, it has a power complex that has led it to hold on to antiquated traditions and ideas that simply fail to add up. Even so, many people are profoundly served by Catholicism's positive traditions. God bless them.

Well a lot of Protestants are still fixated on the Church's past problems anyway. Its no where near as stubborn as the Orthodox churches seem to be. They even finally admited that Galileo was right.

BTW, Catholicism attempts to mediate your relationship with God through the Priest and the Sacraments. Protestantism, particularly the low-churches, encourage a direct relationship with that God.

Thats largely a Protestant fantasy. Not entirely but much of it still a holdover from the time of Luther. The Catholic Church is not the only religion that has a problem with adapting to the present.

[ckweb]

Originally posted by Ethelred
That sure is typical Protestant outlook. Frankly I have more respect for the Catholic Church than a lot of other christian religions. It has changed since Luther you know. I point this out because a surprising number of Protestants still rail away at the Church for things that haven't happened in since the Reformation.

Lots of ex-Protestants feel the same way about their former religions. Its normal. Thats why they quit in many instances. I think you will find a lot of Agnostics don't have those issues. Atheists maybe. Lots of them seem to have decided that god doesn't exist because they were inflamed about things in their former religions. I simply noticed that the main difference between Catholicism and ANY other religion is that I was raised in it instead the others. If the others were mere superstitions why Catholocism as well.

Its seems to me that the original idea behind Communion was most likely symbolic. Somehow it became more than that to a lot of people. Why is another question. Blatantly wrong headed thinking is nothing unique to Catholics.

Well a lot of Protestants are still fixated on the Church's past problems anyway. Its no where near as stubborn as the Orthodox churches seem to be. They even finally admited that Galileo was right.

Thats largely a Protestant fantasy. Not entirely but much of it still a holdover from the time of Luther. The Catholic Church is not the only religion that has a problem with adapting to the present.

Don't get me wrong. . . I'm fine with Catholicism. I disagree with some of their doctrine but I'm not a Catholic-hater or anything nor even are my brother-in-law and twin (despite some of their contempt for their past experiences). In fact, I admire the integrity of the RCC on many occasions. Protestants have a tendency to be conformists while the RCC remains committed to preaching Christ at all times in all places. I think you are right for criticizing some Protestants in the failure to get over past grievances with the Catholic Church. However, what you call "a Protestant fantasy" is still often the case in the RCC. The Catholic Church has and continues to mediate one's relationship with God through the Priest and the Sacraments. There are some RCCs that are more charismatic and hence more likely to encourage a direct relationship with God but the traditionalists continue to hold sway.

Originally posted by Ethelred
Poorly documented in almost all cases. People simply have a loose idea of what constitutes a miracle. Many people refer to the miracle of birth and really believe its miraculous. Low probability events do not constitute miracles. Wittness all the people claiming that Civ III is cheating when a tank is beaten by a spearman. Its the exact same kind of thinking. Something is unlikely so it must be caused by something other than the odds.

A real miracle is when something happens that is literally imposible not merely unlikely. Stopping the Sun in the sky would qualify. Raising the dead for real would qualify but we have no assurance that Lazarus was really dead even if the story is a real one. Considering other religions have the same basic story its quite possible it was grafted onto the Bible.

More often they only show that people have a loose idea of what a miracle is. And a strange idea about the accuracy of medical predictions.

Your point is well taken.

Originally posted by Ethelred
Considering that is based on reality and not on belief, I think its reasonable.

I don't think your point of view is anymore less about belief than mine. You choose not to believe in God. I choose to believe in God. Belief affects us both. Small "r" reality is product of the lens through which each of us sees the world. Big "r" Reality is uncertain for both of us. So, perhaps, it is best that we avoid accusing each of other of being less attune to Reality than the other.

Originally posted by Ethelred
If you want to think it an uwarranted degree of skepticism be my guest. I an fairly sure you would say the say things about other religions than christian ones. Are you not highly skeptical of them? I simply am skeptical to the same degree about yours as well.

I detect a certain sly criticism of me in these comments.

Actually, I don't think I would attempt to negate the religious experiences of others in religions other than my own. I believe their experiences are probably valid. My criterion for analyzing other religious movements are largely the same as those apply to Christianity. I examine the claims and the support for those claims. Many religions, such as forms of Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism, and other Eastern religions, make few supernatural claims. They are primarily philosophical systems. In many cases, I accept the insight that these traditions have to offer. With respect to Hinduism and folk forms of Buddhism, Taoism, and other Eastern religions, I find the claims suspect and the support highly questionable. With respect to Mormonism, I again find the claims highly suspect and the support devoid of any support. With respect to Judaism and Islam, my position is quite involved and would take some time to explain. There are many other religions I'm sure that I do not know enough about to properly consider their claims. As I become more informed, I am always willing to consider them.

Originally posted by Ethelred
Few if any would have come up with those conclusion if not for their constant exposure to that same herd. If you were raised in a no religion environment would you really accept Christianity on the physical evidence and why would accept it over other religions that have every bit as much backing them. Mostly nothing just a christianity mostly has nothing but belief backing it.

I personally doubt that you have become a christian if you hadn't raised as one in the first place. Some do that but not many and even most of them were exposed to it to a fairly large degree all their life. I have found that most of the personal experiences are not really very convincing at best and that is one reason that most keep them personal.

People do have odd dreams and even hallucinations sometimes without drugs. They are not convincing to me. I get weird dreams if I am sleeping hot or dry. I now use a flourescent lamp and make sure I am adequately hydrated before I go to sleep. The proliferation of low heat lights will likely decrease the number of converts in the future.

Actually I am at least sort of seriuos on that. And on this as well, don't leave tungsten lights on over your bed if you have a problem with bad dreams.

That is questionable to say the least. Christianity, unlike other religions such as Judaism and Islam, has grown primarily through proselytization. The rapid growth of Christianity in Africa and Asia is the result of conversions not population growth. In fact, Christianity is declining in those places where you have the longest legacy of the tradition. So, my point, many people accept the claims of Christianity without the constant presence of that religious environment. Entire tribes have converted on only the testimony of one missionary. I can already anticipate the explanations you'll have but I'll wait for you to make them.

I have no desire to keep my experiences personal. I was merely saying they were personal and as such they are difficult to articulate. I can't really explain what the in-dwelling of the Holy Spirit feels like or give it some sort of quantifiable expression. I can, however, attest that experience has happened and I can say it has changed my perspective on things. I have also experienced on a few occasions sudden insights that I think are uncanny. But, they will seem very ordinary to people who weren't in my shoes at the time so I don't bother trying to relate them and have people ridicule me for them. If there is something specific you'd like me to explain, I'll do my best.

That last bit clearly requires a predispostion to believe. How the heck could you expect to worship something that I think is likely non-existent. Pretty darn sure in the case of any god other than a deist type.

Worship IS self-hypnosis.

I should have explained why italicized worship. You are right that it requires belief first. But, it was respect to this third one, that I would advise observation.

I don't think that my experiences are the result of group pressure, sleep deprivation, or self-hypnosis; and I think you've taken progressively extreme examples to evade my initial suggestion. Personally, based upon our interactions in this forum and a gut feeling, I think you have the ability and independent character to withstand group pressure and self-hypnosis! Moreover, you've already stated that sleep deprivation won't work.

I could be kidding myself on sleep deprivation and you clearly don't know understand the self-hypnosis has nothing to do with others. Its deliberatly and intentionaly using suggestion on yourself. The classic is "Every day in every way I am getting better and better". Prayer of the rote kind may not do that but the personal kind you expressly recommend is EXACTLY the same process that is used in self-hypnosis except for the obvious relaxation parts.

A person can be hypnotized with going through the well known rituals that you see in movies and TV. It can be done subtly. Heck it can be done by accident. Can't remember the name but an entertainer used to do a fake hypnotism act. He told the subject to fake it when he got them up on stage. Not out loud of course. Then on one occasion a subject was bit easier to get under a real trance than most.

BTW, prayer, at least in my experience, is not self-hypnosis. In Protestant Churches, particularly the so-called low-churches, prayers are not recited. They are spoken personally and often individually.

That is exactly how one does self-hypnosis. Its SELF.

I understand that self-hypnosis has nothing to do with others. But, I do not see how prayer, not being rote and not having any specific objective other than attempting to enter a relationship, can be self-hypnotic. If anything, it can be frustrating as sometimes it feels as though you are talking to the four corners of the room you happen to be praying in.

This seems to be hard for you to deal with I can't see trying to devolop a relationship with the Giant Invisible Orbiting Aardvark either. I have to have the proof FIRST before I will try the self-brainwashing route. It is self-brainwashing even if you don't like the term. Convincing yourself that something is real without any evidence that it is real can be nothing else.

I guess I just don't see it as self-brainwashing. Rather I see it as investigation or research.

Believing in someone elses belief. Bandwagon stuff. Very popular in politics as well.

It's more than believing in someone else's belief. It is believing that they gave a accurate reporting of a particular experience. It might be bandwagon, I suppose, but I don't think it always necessary to act the rogue. If people repeatedly attest to something, I am willing to give it the benefit of the doubt.

That is NOT their reason. I say that because belief MUST come first for that. You can't have a personal experience with something that most likely doesn't exist unless you allready believe.

I disagree. Belief does not necessarily come first; often it does not. The experience initiates the belief. Granted, often there is openness to the possibilities (although sometimes even this much isn't there). But is that a bad thing?

You really don't understand anyone not believing. I have no desire to engage in what looks exactly like brainwashing myself. I am more infomed now that is true. I see even more reason than ever to consider christianity just another superstition. If you ever look at it from the outside you may also see that. Your whole life and belief system is structured around a belief in something that is really no more evident than any other religion. Some are more savage. Some are less so. But all depend on a belief instead of evidence. Well some of the Eastern Religions are much more of a way at looking at things than they are like Western god based religion but they still have the idea of mystical things.

I think Christianity has more to stand on than many other religions. I think I've made my position on that clear.

I understand unbelievers. Most of my friends are unbelievers and respect your and their right to choose your own path. I'm merely offering my experience. Nothing more, nothing less.