sensorily — Maureen
It doesn't make it more likely that it exists for you, but it might make it more rational for them to believe. Their beliefs could be based on their experiences and then also on the practices seeming to help or bring them closer to experiences they prefer and were promised or that seem to or actually do solve emotional and spiritual problems for them. Thus making their religious experiences a foundation for their deepening or continued belief.If those who wrote religious texts claimed to have experienced God sensorily, that is no different than them suddenly claiming that there is a being that exists which they decided to call God (or whatever name you want to apply), then writing texts over a period of time about this being and things that He supposedly did. But how does any of this make it any more likely that the being exists? — Maureen
That's really not the case. Much of what we consider real is via inference.In general, to experience something by sight is to prove that it exists, — Maureen
Well, they claim different, and that via long term practices on can experience God, including sensorily.but God cannot be experienced in this manner, or any other manner for that matter. I.E. God cannot be heard, touched, smelled, etc. so by this logic no human could truly have experienced God sensorily in spite of their claims. — Maureen
There was certainly theism before Christianity, since Christianity flowed out of Judaism. We know from shamanic and indigenous cultures that people have experiences of beings that seem equivalent to God (along with other entities). I see little reason to believe that belief in God arose in the recent history Christianity began in.I will not argue that there could have been a Christian God even before Christianity came about, but unless humans were aware of His presence before the onset of Christianity (which is impossible to determine, but again very unlikely) — Maureen
Like I said any of these Gods could exist and could have existed without respect to their given religion, but it is impossible to make that argument unless humans were aware of the presence of any of the Gods before their religion came about, which in itself cannot be proven. — Maureen
the God of any religion only necessarily came to fruition or came to be recognized in conjunction with the onset of that religion. — Maureen
This seems to have a sort of background argument as follows:unless humans were aware of His presence before the onset of Christianity (which is impossible to determine, but again very unlikely), then no one among us can argue that He existed before then. — Maureen
In general, to experience something by sight is to prove that it exists — Maureen
We cannot argue that there was a Christian God before Christianity started. — Joel Evans
A rose is a flower. It was a flower before it was called a rose, it will remain the same flower even if I decide to call it a Flamingo. The flower does not care what I call it. It simply is — Book273
But how does any of this make it any more likely that the being exists? In general, to experience something by sight is to prove that it exists, but God cannot be experienced in this manner, or any other manner for that matter. I.E. God cannot be heard, touched, smelled, etc. so by this logic no human could truly have experienced God sensorily in spite of their claims. — Maureen
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.