So, something like "love" would be just as hard to evidence as "God"?

-TC

You know I like you Amergin, but I"m gonna play advesary for a bit!

So, are you telling me that any "Kansas redneck" (I prefer the term "Jayhawk" but I'll let it go!) could stumble into research you happen to be doing in your line of work and conclude, with no training whatsoever, that such work is clearly evident?



Ah, but doesn't this imply a Deity that wants or expects something? When we were just evolving into our higher rung, was mathematics "there", "available", "existent yet awaiting discovery". Or, was it simply something that becomes existent once a certain level of consciousness is attained, and once one can train others to achieve that level of consciousness, mathematics becomes known? Or do such principles not even exist, in which case, much of what we term the rational level of understnding is supported by little else than a phantasm itself.


It seems to me, we're severely limiting God to a being. I don't think I would catagorize my belief, as wish fulfillment.


I would say there is no material evidence, but I would be a bit reluctant to limit science and evience to materialism.

-TC

Oh, master of the short, dismissive answer. How about "The arena from which any and all perspectives arise".


Because people are social, interactive creatures, who do things sometimes from a completely selfless and altruistic nature, running against the materialistic tide of "just here to pass on and preserve my gene pool". People who have such experiences have been known to completely change the course of their lives, which may not be of any materialistic evidence, but is not something that can be summarily dismissed without completely dismissing one's sense of humanity.


Materialistic empirical, or just empirical?

-TC

What's the deistic model?


Because it's an argument from numbers, and hearsay.


Well first you'd have to define God, then we could talk about exactly what kind of evidence would apply.

If you're going by deism, doesn't a deist believe that God created the universe and put no further hand in its function, doesn't care about humanity, or is just an observer? Not sure how you would go about providing evidence of that.

If you're also operating on the deistic model, then that pretty much invalidates all religious experiences because of the concept that the deist God doesn't involve himself in the universe, doesn't care about humanity or is just observing.

How is asking a question dismissive or an answer?

Care to extrapolate on that short, vague answer?



That appears to be a strawman.


And what does that have to do with God?


Not sure how "just empirical" is a different concept. Empirical relies on experiment and observation using the senses.

At least with "love", one could tell there's some sort of thought process going on evidenced by brainwave activity along with which lobe(s) may be more active, even though neurologists cannot tell exactly what thoughts are taking place. On top of that, most of us have felt "love" at one time or another.

Can we say the same thing in regards to deities? What can be measured in this area? Why is it that various people's concepts about a deity or deities varies so widely?

__________________
"The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge."-- Einstein

Since you go on to answer this question later in the post, I have to wonder why you ask....

It's not an argument from numbers. It is hearsay, which is one of the many reasons I said it was UNCOMPELLING evidence.

In a nutshell.

Hence the original question: What evidence could there be?


Not necessarily. It depends on your explanation for those experiences.

__________________
We do not fear the night, who have loved the stars so fondly.

Yep.


As I mentioned in another thread, neurotheology shows mystical experiences to be neurologically distinct events.


Because we're trying to explain something we don't - can't - understand.

__________________
We do not fear the night, who have loved the stars so fondly.

Then why do as such? As I mentioned on another thread, what's wrong with saying "I don't know" instead of jumping to conclusions that have a great chance of being significantly off the mark? Instead, what I'm typically seeing is speculation built on top of speculation. To me, it's quite acceptable to do some speculation as long as we recognize that this is just what it is and nothing more. However, so many appear to take their speculation so seriously that it's elevated to the level of slam-dunk proof.

__________________
"The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge."-- Einstein

You said: Define God.

Notice, you put a period at the end, not an interrogative. That's a demand, as if the statement itself somehow casts doubt on the subject even being broached. That's a challenge, not a question.


Was there something in the answer that was not clear? Its only vague, because there is not a ready materialistic explanation for it. We have an experience, it includes perspectives, as well as perspectives upon perspectives. The totality of these perspectives is the closest way I can come to defining God. You asked me to define it, I did.



Not any more than any materialistic argument. Materialists demand material answers even though they only constitute a portion of how we experience the world. Usually, you have to show why you think it is a strawman, otherwise your answer is just a dismissive way of ignoring it.


If you ask those people...everything.


Empirical simply means experienced and observed. Material means physical substance. If I observe my dream, if I observe my contemplative experience, would this constitute evidence to you?

-TC