[jayceeii]

Jesus said no one comes to the Father but through Him, and I interpret this that there are no channels to the Invisible God available to the creatures. In fact it can be argued it would be very bad for them were this the case, since if God is literally keeping His fingers in everything, in the end He is interacting with Himself, and He’d get bored. As Hinduism declares (I think wrongly), He’d eventually draw creation back into Himself.

In no case of claimed God experience do divine behaviors emanate. We see the usual human states of greed and anger remaining, as if God sidled up happily to the sinners. There are alternative explanations for these experiences, for instance in the East it is said the goal is union with Self, and that these will be stupendous experiences of enlightenment. People on both sides may be experiencing this and the states leading up to it, but interpreting it according to the local traditions, unable to see the state’s objectivity.

To carry your argument further you must cite specific examples of these claims. I’d differentiate Sai Baba, for instance, from Teresa of Avila. Some are higher than others.

[Lelouch]

The argument relies on the premise that direct experiences of God reported by multiple witnesses are best explained by the existence of a supernatural being, which we may call God. You challenged this premise by citing Jesus’ statement that no one comes to the Father but through Him, and interpreting it to mean that there are no channels to the Invisible God available to creatures. However, this interpretation does not constitute a refutation of the argument. The argument is not concerned with whether or not there are channels to God, but with the best explanation for reported direct experiences of God.

You suggested that divine behaviors do not emanate from these experiences and that the usual human states of greed and anger remain. However, this is not necessarily true. There are many reported cases of people who claim to have had direct experiences of God and have undergone profound changes in their lives and behavior as a result. For example, the Apostle Paul, who had a dramatic encounter with Jesus on the road to Damascus, underwent a radical transformation from a persecutor of Christians to a fervent believer and evangelist. Similarly, St. Augustine of Hippo, who had a profound experience that led to his conversion, went on to become one of the most influential theologians in Christian history.

Moreover, you suggested that there are alternative explanations for these experiences, such as the Eastern goal of union with the Self. While it is true that different religious traditions may interpret these experiences differently, this does not necessarily mean that there are alternative explanations for them. The fact remains that people from different religious traditions claim to have had direct experiences of God, and the best explanation for these experiences, according to the argument, is the existence of a supernatural being.

You said that specific examples of these claims must be cited and that some claims are higher than others. While it is true that some claims may be more credible than others, the argument is concerned with the general phenomenon of reported direct experiences of God, and not with any particular claim. The argument is based on the principle of inference to the best explanation, which is a general principle of reasoning that applies to all cases where competing hypotheses are being considered.

Your objections do not constitute a refutation of the argument. The argument is based on sound reasoning and evidence, and there are many reported cases of people who claim to have had direct experiences of God that cannot be explained by naturalistic causes. While different religious traditions may interpret these experiences differently, the best explanation for them, according to the argument, is the existence of a supernatural being.

[jayceeii]

The argument is certainly refuted when no creatures are having authentic God experience.

Setting Paul aside a moment, Augustine’s experience that he related is clearly savikalpa samadhi, not nirvikalpa samadhi. But we know from studying Eknath Easwaran that even nirvikalpa samadhi leaves substantial egoism. As Ramakrishna said, samadhi is a small thing.

Almost all Christians claim profound changes in their lives. I’m talking about a mind free from greed and anger, which lives in a natural quest for the benefit of all. The Buddha called such a one a bodhisattva, but there are fine points to be considered here as well.

I think you will find as history proceeds that there is tremendous resistance to ideas of an external Creator. These are only coming in now as people imagine God to be a simpleton.

[Lelouch]

You raise several points that are worth addressing.

1. The possibility that no creatures are having authentic God experience

You suggest that the argument is refuted if it is possible that no creatures are having authentic experiences of God. However, this objection misses the point of the argument. the argument is not about whether or not creatures are having authentic experiences of God, but rather about how best to explain the experiences that are reported by multiple witnesses. The objection does not address the fact that there are many people who claim to have had direct experiences of God, and that these experiences are often reported independently by multiple witnesses. This is the evidence that the argument is based on, and it remains unchallenged by this objection.

2. The nature of mystical experiences

You suggest that the experiences reported by witnesses may not be supernatural in nature, but rather may be explained by psychological or physiological factors. However, the argument acknowledges this possibility and argues that naturalistic explanations do not fully account for the depth and quality of these experiences. The fact that these experiences are accompanied by profound changes in the lives and behavior of the witnesses, and are often reported independently by multiple witnesses, suggests that they are not merely subjective experiences, but have some objective reality. This is why the argument concludes that the best explanation for these experiences is the existence of a supernatural being.

You also suggest that the experiences reported by witnesses may not be as profound as they claim, and may be similar to the experiences of other mystics such as Augustine or Ramakrishna. However, this objection is based on the assumption that all mystical experiences are the same, which is not supported by the evidence. While there may be similarities between different mystical experiences, there are also significant differences in their content, intensity, and effects. The fact that the experiences reported by witnesses are often accompanied by profound changes in their lives and behavior, and are often reported independently by multiple witnesses, suggests that they are not just ordinary mystical experiences, but are something more.

3. The resistance to external Creator ideas

You suggest that there is tremendous resistance to the idea of an external Creator, and that this resistance is evidence that the idea of God as a simpleton is being imagined. However, this objection is based on a false premise. While it is true that some people are resistant to the idea of an external Creator, this is not because they imagine God to be a simpleton, but rather because they have different philosophical or religious beliefs. The fact that there are many people who believe in the existence of a supernatural being, and that this belief is supported by the direct experiences of God reported by witnesses, suggests that the idea of an external Creator is a legitimate hypothesis that should be taken seriously.

• This reply was modified 1 year ago by  Lelouch.

[jayceeii]

LL: 1. The possibility that no creatures are having authentic God experience

You suggest that the argument is refuted if it is possible that no creatures are having authentic experiences of God. However, this objection misses the point of the argument. the argument is not about whether or not creatures are having authentic experiences of God, but rather about how best to explain the experiences that are reported by multiple witnesses. The objection does not address the fact that there are many people who claim to have had direct experiences of God, and that these experiences are often reported independently by multiple witnesses. This is the evidence that the argument is based on, and it remains unchallenged by this objection.

JC: What? You are talking about mass or simultaneous experiences of God? That only happens around the Incarnation, and the humans seeing Him wouldn’t agree it is God.

In any case I now understand that all private claims to God-experience are outside the scope of your argument. Now, can you list some public claims? I haven’t heard of this.

LL: 2. The nature of mystical experiences

You suggest that the experiences reported by witnesses may not be supernatural in nature, but rather may be explained by psychological or physiological factors. However, the argument acknowledges this possibility and argues that naturalistic explanations do not fully account for the depth and quality of these experiences. The fact that these experiences are accompanied by profound changes in the lives and behavior of the witnesses, and are often reported independently by multiple witnesses, suggests that they are not merely subjective experiences, but have some objective reality. This is why the argument concludes that the best explanation for these experiences is the existence of a supernatural being.

JC: Having admitted no private experiences count, I see no weight here until you list public experiences. I’d agree many reporting seeing God floating on a cloud would be evidence of a spiritual manifestation of some kind, but I think you’re limited to the accounts in the Bible and are utterly bereft of any such accounts in recent millennia. You’d be preaching to the choir. Only other Christians would even start to accept this idea.

LL: You also suggest that the experiences reported by witnesses may not be as profound as they claim, and may be similar to the experiences of other mystics such as Augustine or Ramakrishna. However, this objection is based on the assumption that all mystical experiences are the same, which is not supported by the evidence. While there may be similarities between different mystical experiences, there are also significant differences in their content, intensity, and effects. The fact that the experiences reported by witnesses are often accompanied by profound changes in their lives and behavior, and are often reported independently by multiple witnesses, suggests that they are not just ordinary mystical experiences, but are something more.

JC: You are choking for lack of any concrete examples, shifting in and out of public or private claims in undefined ways. Augustine’s experience was not as profound as Easwaran’s. Augustine reported that his experience ended, which is savikalpa samadhi. Easwaran was established in samadhi, though too dim to notice he was above Gandhi. Egoism remained in both. Neither was pure. Neither felt genuine love for the neighbor.

It isn’t that all mystical experiences are the same, but they are part of the same journey.

LL: 3. The resistance to external Creator ideas

You suggest that there is tremendous resistance to the idea of an external Creator, and that this resistance is evidence that the idea of God as a simpleton is being imagined. However, this objection is based on a false premise. While it is true that some people are resistant to the idea of an external Creator, this is not because they imagine God to be a simpleton, but rather because they have different philosophical or religious beliefs. The fact that there are many people who believe in the existence of a supernatural being, and that this belief is supported by the direct experiences of God reported by witnesses, suggests that the idea of an external Creator is a legitimate hypothesis that should be taken seriously.

JC: I am saying the God-concept of the masses is that of a simpleton, for instance one who couldn’t follow or repudiate arguments from logic. If the people were forced to admit their Creator is above them in every way, they would prefer not to believe in Him. In particular they don’t want to hear God is the opponent of desire, that is all they live for.