giving answers to whats obvious is a waste of time, and can create confusion, better if u just look and see — OmniscientNihilist

Your understanding of how thought relates to mind and consciousness is far from obvious.

You’re free to ignore any questions that make you uncomfortable, of course, but it makes me wonder why a person with such a lack of curiosity would participate in a forum such as this.

You’re free to ignore any questions that make you uncomfortable, of course, but it makes me wonder why a person with such a lack of curiosity would participate in a forum such as this. — praxis

i answered your question

reply to my answer if you wish

if u can see, then my answer is not needed

if u cant see, then no answer will ever be enough

i answered your question — OmniscientNihilist

Looking at it again, I guess you did. At the end where you wrote, “giving answers to whats obvious is a waste of time...”, I must have mistakenly took as acknowledgement that what preceded it was gibberish.

Looking at it again, I guess you did. At the end where you wrote, “giving answers to whats obvious is a waste of time...”, I must have mistakenly took as acknowledgement that what preceded it was gibberish. — praxis

ultimately nothing can be explained because knowledge is an illusion. its all relative to evidence and if u cannot see that evidence you will never understand or believe the knoweldge that points to it. and if u can see it then you dont need the knowleldge or belief.

I don’t see the point of spewing gibberish.

That is very interesting. Do these experiences last long?

A week at most. Last one I had was three weeks ago, started on a Saturday and gradually wound down by Wednesday or Thursday and was gone completely by Friday morning.

What you explain when it comes to this sensation is a possibility. However, I’d like to argue that you would have to include the argument of whether or not God exists.

Let’s say, for example, that God DOES exist on this earth and created humans to have the feeling that they need a deeper purpose or reason for believing in something, whether this be produced by chemicals, a straightforward explanation, or the actual presence of God. We could argue that maybe he would use this “sensation” as a way to get people to search for him, or to bring them closer to him.

But if this world specifically does have God, then how could we imagine what another world would be like if he wasn’t present and we didn’t have that feeling? What theists would argue is that you couldn’t necessarily imagine a world like this because God IS the reason that this feeling exists. Which could come back the actual world we live in.

How could we assume that people would still feel this feeling if there was no God?
You could also potentially include an argument about various worlds in order to further this.

It is possible that this feeling is only a human feeling that just comes along with being one, and that if God did not exist, the feeling still would. But couldn’t it also be possible that God could not exist and humans would not having this feeling? An important part to this argument is that I am not sure that it would be possible for God to exist and the feeling to not, it seems that these two things are paired.
If we were to assume that God does exist, it would make sense that he would create us specifically in this way. If he didn’t, many people could possibly miss out on pursuing him.

This adaption you talk about, could be argued to have grown from a slow disconnect from God over time.However, I do believe that you could also argue that there is a possibility that people gained this feeling slowly over time and God just so happened to fill the role- like you said. But when exactly this started would be important to note on this side of the argument. I wouldn’t say that it’s necessarily “apparent” that things could have happened this way- it would depend on how you looked at it. It is also possible that God was already around and known by many, and that they just provided the answer of God to those that had the sensation but didn’t know why yet.

I could be wrong in assuming this (etc.) — BBQueue

I, for one, believe that yes, you're wrong in assuming this.

Yes, the so-called "religious experience" or "mystical experience" is a neurochemical phenomenon that can be induced with drugs, and occurs (without drugs) even in strong atheists like me. — Pfhorrest

We can induce people hearing things with drugs also, this doesn't mean when they are hearing things at other times, there is no thing they are hearing. You didn't say that since we can induce the feeling with drugs this means that when it happens without the drugs it is really just an internal chemical thing with no actual object of sensing or stimulation, but often this is used as an argument demonstrating, supposedly, that therefore it isn't God when people feel this feeling.

↪Tzeentch I don’t have any professional research on hand to share, but for myself personally I have had sober experiences that match the descriptions I’ve read of “mystical” experiences, and friends who have done LSD say that when I am having those experiences I seem like someone on a “really good trip”, and that their experiences while on LSD also match the descriptions they’ve read of “mystical experiences”. — Pfhorrest

Which doesn't add up to either you or your friends knowing what is going on in you and has very little to do with knowing what is happening in non-drug induced religious experiences in other people. IOW your argument is coming down to a

I have had that experience you had (which is a kind of psychic claim)
and I know it wasn't caused by God (in this instance) when I had it
so I know that other people are not experiencing God.

We can induce people hearing things with drugs also, this doesn't mean when they are hearing things at other times, there is no thing they are hearing. You didn't say that since we can induce the feeling with drugs this means that when it happens without the drugs it is really just an internal chemical thing with no actual object of sensing or stimulation, but often this is used as an argument demonstrating, supposedly, that therefore it isn't God when people feel this feeling. — Coben

I don't think god's existence or lack of existence should or could be decided with a feeling. It is impossible to decide whether god exists or not. There is a fifty percent chance that it does and fifty that it does not.

If god manifests, it can be chalked up to illusion in people. If god does not manifest, which is the historical and present case, then there is nothing to go on. It is not impossible that god exists, and it is not impossible that no god exists. Empirical evidence to the existence of god, once empirical evidence is extant, can be discounted.

The only way to approach the god question and the knowledge whether one exists or not, is via belief.

If there was no God to speak of, would people still feel a spiritual, God-like sensation?

God does exist. You are God.

The question in the OP isn’t whether God exists, but if people would still have mystical experiences if he didn’t. Since we have examples of mystical experiences attributable to things other than God, the answer is yes, whether or not God exists and might be behind other such experiences.

If there was no God to speak of, would people still feel a spiritual, God-like sensation?

God does exist. You are God. — ovdtogt

Oh, shucks. Why is @BBQueue and @PfHorrest always god? Why can't I be god once in a while? Not fair. (Sucks his thumb in a defiant way.) :-)

↪Coben The question in the OP isn’t whether God exists, but if people would still have mystical experiences if he didn’t. Since we have examples of mystical experiences attributable to things other than God, the answer is yes, whether or not God exists and might be behind other such experiences. — Pfhorrest

The topic assumes that god exists. It does not claim god exists; but proposes to deal with the topic in light of assuming that god exists. It is a given. Look at the wording.

It is impossible to talk about this topic in this thread not thinking or not accepting, even for argument's sake, that god does exist. There is a word to describe this way of thinking and dealing with a topic, but I never memorized it. It's a damn good word.

But this way you squeeze out about half of the participants in this forum, who, out of principle, never would assume god exists.

assuming arguendo? perhaps
Those participants can easily just avoid the topic, or join in the thought experiment. Given that it is the assumption, it is not as if they are be cornered into chaning their minds or seeming to.

OK

Those participants can easily just avoid the topic, or join in the thought experiment. Given that it is the assumption, it is not as if they are be cornered into chaning their minds or seeming to. — Coben

Absolutely.

The whole anthropomorphic deity thing is really a construct of specific religions, Christianity certainly being a major contributor. There are numerous world religious traditions which focus on the higher self, enlightenment, spiritual perfection without having to invoke the oversight of an over-mind. Buddhism, Confucianism, Yogic spiritual texts.

Based solely on the evidence of the history and capacities of consciousness, I am a solid advocate of personal consciousness-development, a.k.a spirituality. Can consciousness evolve to become more than it is? Absolutely. Are such experiences "divine?" I guess that depends on the person and the experience. From my own personal 'enantiodromia', I would say...close enough.