Help: How do I know that your God is the one, true God?

[Kir Komrik]

Hi all,
I'm new here and have just read up on the policies and finished my signature, etc. I hope I've done everything correctly so far.
I would like to believe in an almighty power but the problem is that in my research I've found so many gods out there. Coming from a family that has been explicitly atheist for generations, I'm starting from scratch and am looking at all religions.
I am sincerely curious to know how would I know, for instance, that your god is the one, true God?
Thank you.

[TheTruth101]

Atheism is a belief just as with any religion. You believe that no god exists. You have no scientific data to support your claim. As I have stated, I do not think belief in God should be the default belief, I just don't believe it is rational to make a judgment either way without evidence to support your claim. Ok so you dont have enough evidence to believe. Thats fine. That is your reality. But you don't have any evidence that suggests that one day a god will not be discovered either. I do not bother myself to declare the things I lack belief in since I cant think of any names for them. If it weren't for god you wouldn't have anything to not believe in.

Do I have to explain everything to you? atheism is the lack of a belief. The burden of proof is on he who alleges. The default position is always lack of belief.

Let me give you an example so you can understand your error in asserting the default position should be neither belief nor lack of belief:

The Great Flying Spaghetti Monster, astrology, and the belief that we are actually toads and not human. Pick one or go with all three. It is the height of silliness to suggest the default position should be as you might put it:

"Hmmmm... well... uh... I wouldn't want to rush to judgment here. Someday we may find evidence for the GFSM [may his pasta be praised] and you know that toad thing has got me thinking. I think I'll reserve judgement. Now that I think of it, the last girl I dated had definite toad possibilities...."

Simply add god, as number 4 to the list.

Now why is this so? Because otherwise anyone, at anytime, anywhere could invent the silliest notion possible and say, "not so fast. You should consider all the evidence"

In fact, that's exactly what the Young Earther's have done. And scientists are quite right to not even bother to debate them.

Billions of people on planet earth are driven for some reason to imagine a god to be worshiped. I know of no one on the earth that worships a FSM. If there is no God why does the overwhelming majority feel the need to imagine one? Approximately 80% of the worlds population is religious. Some of us are even college educated. Imagine that.

The majority of people believe in ghosts.
http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-500160_162-994766.html

Some claim more people believe in aliens and ghosts than in god.
http://www.livescience.com/7608-people- ... s-god.html

Why do people believe in the irrational, the religious, the non empirical?

I suspect people simply have an inner need, a desire for meaning, for purpose. The human brain simply got too big [for 20% of us anyway ]. Our only purpose is to live long enough to reproduce and help our children live long enough so they too can reproduce. That's the biological imperative. That's all there is.

We, up to 80% of humans according to you, refuse to accept this. The desire to find meaning is stronger than the desire for truth or cautious judgment.

There is a rational alternative without resorting to fantasy and wishful thinking.
Make your own meaning. Life is a canvas. Paint!

Many find their purpose in helping others. Those who have recovered from serious drug addictions will tell you they get more meaning and help from their efforts to help others, than the help they give.

Creating art or literature, or building homes and roads, in addition to what it does for others, gives the builder satisfaction. Yes indeed, there seems to be a need to believe in the supernatural. Why not transform that irrational need into something real, into helping others and thus into helping yourself?

Tho' in many cases the task appears hopeless, I get satisfaction from helping others think more clearly.

Problem with this idea relies on self importance and self feeding. It's the weaker version of the truth.
One can simply do the same thing as you have said, but with God in mind. Thus, it relates to one giving credit to God instead of oneself, hence, one is not in awe of himself but a higher existent deity.It relates to one not in such self high, but rather stays humbled to oneself.
In all due meaning, its for our own good, as it is evident when one feels accomplishment from within,pride gets extreme, once that takes place, there will be conflicts all around, because there will always be another just around the corner that will have extreme egos as well.

Once conflicts become ones way of living, its a given one will lash out at their sorroundings, and the ones that are offended will eventually leave. Isolation will come, and when it does, one knowing there is no God, there will be no sign of hope. Hence, religion itself is an establishment set by God to the humankind for us to carry on when things get rough, to believe and have hope in the 'light', that there is a better existence after this.

Admitting one is weak is the strongest and most signifying thing one can say to another. Itexpresses humbleness, and at the same time it confesses oneself is not inhibited or plugged in with the judgements of another being, it rather amplifies independance and freedom from judgement of the society, in midst, offering trust.

It goes against the gateway of sin, pride. Hence, confession of one being in a state of powerlesness , or weak, takes a lot of understanding of life, known as wisdom, as well as humbleness, which is the opposite of pride, ultimately known as one of the heavenly virtues.

.

[TheTruth101]

Humility is the word.

[Danmark]

I suspect people simply have an inner need, a desire for meaning, for purpose. The human brain simply got too big [for 20% of us anyway ]. Our only purpose is to live long enough to reproduce and help our children live long enough so they too can reproduce. That's the biological imperative. That's all there is.

We, up to 80% of humans according to you, refuse to accept this. The desire to find meaning is stronger than the desire for truth or cautious judgment.

There is a rational alternative without resorting to fantasy and wishful thinking.
Make your own meaning. Life is a canvas. Paint!

Many find their purpose in helping others. Those who have recovered from serious drug addictions will tell you they get more meaning and help from their efforts to help others, than the help they give.

Creating art or literature, or building homes and roads, in addition to what it does for others, gives the builder satisfaction. Yes indeed, there seems to be a need to believe in the supernatural. Why not transform that irrational need into something real, into helping others and thus into helping yourself?

Tho' in many cases the task appears hopeless, I get satisfaction from helping others think more clearly.

Problem with this idea relies on self importance and self feeding. It's the weaker version of the truth.
One can simply do the same thing as you have said, but with God in mind. Thus, it relates to one giving credit to God instead of oneself, hence, one is not in awe of himself but a higher existent deity.It relates to one not in such self high, but rather stays humbled to oneself.
In all due meaning, its for our own good, as it is evident when one feels accomplishment from within,pride gets extreme, once that takes place, there will be conflicts all around, because there will always be another just around the corner that will have extreme egos as well.

Once conflicts become ones way of living, its a given one will lash out at their sorroundings, and the ones that are offended will eventually leave. Isolation will come, and when it does, one knowing there is no God, there will be no sign of hope. Hence, religion itself is an establishment set by God to the humankind for us to carry on when things get rough, to believe and have hope in the 'light', that there is a better existence after this.

Admitting one is weak is the strongest and most signifying thing one can say to another. Itexpresses humbleness, and at the same time it confesses oneself is not inhibited or plugged in with the judgements of another being, it rather amplifies independance and freedom from judgement of the society, in midst, offering trust.

It goes against the gateway of sin, pride. Hence, confession of one being in a state of powerlesness , or weak, takes a lot of understanding of life, known as wisdom, as well as humbleness, which is the opposite of pride, ultimately known as one of the heavenly virtues.

.

Much of what you say is one non sequitur after another. . . or wrong on its face. "A weaker version of truth"? The problem with this sentence may simply be your choice of words, but isn't something either true or not? One does not need god or a belief in god to have a purpose outside the self. One does not need belief his weakness to humble. There is nothing wrong with feeling important. Everyone IS important. Everyone can help others and feel empowered by helping. I'd be curious to know if anyone here would disagree with the statements, "I feel good when I help others. I often get more than I give when I do for others."

There is no benefit to feeling worthless or powerless.

[Zetesis Apistia]

Atheism is a belief just as with any religion. You believe that no god exists. You have no scientific data to support your claim. As I have stated, I do not think belief in God should be the default belief, I just don't believe it is rational to make a judgment either way without evidence to support your claim. Ok so you dont have enough evidence to believe. Thats fine. That is your reality. But you don't have any evidence that suggests that one day a god will not be discovered either. I do not bother myself to declare the things I lack belief in since I cant think of any names for them. If it weren't for god you wouldn't have anything to not believe in.

Do I have to explain everything to you? atheism is the lack of a belief. The burden of proof is on he who alleges. The default position is always lack of belief.

Let me give you an example so you can understand your error in asserting the default position should be neither belief nor lack of belief:

The Great Flying Spaghetti Monster, astrology, and the belief that we are actually toads and not human. Pick one or go with all three. It is the height of silliness to suggest the default position should be as you might put it:

"Hmmmm... well... uh... I wouldn't want to rush to judgment here. Someday we may find evidence for the GFSM [may his pasta be praised] and you know that toad thing has got me thinking. I think I'll reserve judgement. Now that I think of it, the last girl I dated had definite toad possibilities...."

Simply add god, as number 4 to the list.

Now why is this so? Because otherwise anyone, at anytime, anywhere could invent the silliest notion possible and say, "not so fast. You should consider all the evidence"

In fact, that's exactly what the Young Earther's have done. And scientists are quite right to not even bother to debate them.

Billions of people on planet earth are driven for some reason to imagine a god to be worshiped. I know of no one on the earth that worships a FSM. If there is no God why does the overwhelming majority feel the need to imagine one? Approximately 80% of the worlds population is religious. Some of us are even college educated. Imagine that.

The majority of people believe in ghosts.
http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-500160_162-994766.html

Some claim more people believe in aliens and ghosts than in god.
http://www.livescience.com/7608-people- ... s-god.html

Why do people believe in the irrational, the religious, the non empirical?

I suspect people simply have an inner need, a desire for meaning, for purpose. The human brain simply got too big [for 20% of us anyway ]. Our only purpose is to live long enough to reproduce and help our children live long enough so they too can reproduce. That's the biological imperative. That's all there is.

We, up to 80% of humans according to you, refuse to accept this. The desire to find meaning is stronger than the desire for truth or cautious judgment.

There is a rational alternative without resorting to fantasy and wishful thinking.
Make your own meaning. Life is a canvas. Paint!

Many find their purpose in helping others. Those who have recovered from serious drug addictions will tell you they get more meaning and help from their efforts to help others, than the help they give.

Creating art or literature, or building homes and roads, in addition to what it does for others, gives the builder satisfaction. Yes indeed, there seems to be a need to believe in the supernatural. Why not transform that irrational need into something real, into helping others and thus into helping yourself?

Tho' in many cases the task appears hopeless, I get satisfaction from helping others think more clearly.

A police officer in a big city may conclude that the world is full of evil people because he sees so much of it everyday. Another person works in a flower shop and concludes that the world is full of thoughtful people. Each ones beliefs is just a reflection of his or her own reality. Neither position is scientific it is just an opinion formed by observation. Your lack of belief is a reflection of your reality and not the result of a scientific study. The same can be said for me. The simple truth is that the cop and the flower shop worker are both right, but neither would agree to it. The same can be said for you and me. To you there is no god, but to me there is. The question you might ask is, what is my reality that would bring me to embrace the God concept?

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 633:

A police officer in a big city may conclude that the world is full of evil people because he sees so much of it everyday. Another person works in a flower shop and concludes that the world is full of thoughtful people. Each ones beliefs is just a reflection of his or her own reality. Neither position is scientific it is just an opinion formed by observation. Your lack of belief is a reflection of your reality and not the result of a scientific study. The same can be said for me. The simple truth is that the cop and the flower shop worker are both right, but neither would agree to it. The same can be said for you and me.

Ya had me in all that, but kinda lost me in the following...

To you there is no god, but to me there is. The question you might ask is, what is my reality that would bring me to embrace the God concept?

While I should certainly explore why you maintain belief in the god, I see a difference in the police/flower lady scenario and the declaration that there's some entity "up there". Evil and good are so clearly subjective opinions that I shan't argue with you there, but when you express an opinion as fact, when you ostensibly declare "bigfoot" exists, then you have a whole different deal going on.

You claim a god exists, and I claim one doesn't, so we should both be expected to support our respective contentions of fact without resorting to the emotional, subjective opinion of what constitutes good or evil.

Your opinion of what constitutes evil is worthy of my respect, even if I disagree, and barring the ridiculous. Your declaration that a god exists, sans your showing such is the case, is not worthy of my respect (except in the general sense that we ought'n just pick on folks).


I present the following as amateur opinion based on a lifetime of amateur study by an amateur, but swear up and down I've got the best of it here...

It is my contention that, ostensibly, you are here inserting the claim of a god's existence in order to support a claim that this or that notion is evil, or good. I propose this is kinda what the god concept is there for - to provide an "anchor", or "root" for concepts (here good and evil) that are otherwise nothing more than subjective opinion, but an opinion that holds great potential for conflict within the human mind.

"Why should I be good if there is no god?" A not uncommon refrain among theists, and we see in such an example that their mind is unable to hold onto the one concept - good vs. evil - without it has some anthropological "anchor", or "decider", or, let's all say it together, "rule giver".

I propose no nefarity here, nor do I propose an "idiot", or other derogatory mental system. I merely propose it is a faulty conclusion borne of a deep desire to feel as if one's conclusions regarding rather unsolvable questions have them some legitimacy. The mind seems none to proud of the subjective, owing to the desire to have an objective answer, where doubt doesn't cloud the issue. The mind is built on knowing far more than hoping, even if it ends up having to rely on the one more'n the other.

I answer the question of good versus evil with my own set of ethics and morality, informed by my own learnings, and society at large (to include religious notions), and have no real need to understand or expect my subjective opinion to be anything but just that. I'm a 'simpleton' that way. My mind is happy right there, for right or wrong, good or bad, and I move on about my day.

The theist, however, presents with a desire to "know" that there's some great, cosmic, all-knowing entity that agrees with him, and in nigh on all situations this will be an anthropomorphic entity. He seems, with all respect and I don't dare put him down, but he seems to have this deeply-rooted desire to feel like his morality is justified, is worthy, is the only way to go, for risk of an infinite loop of pondering a given concept (here morality). I propose he uses this god concept, this "image of myself, only totally wise and all that", in order to "solve" such questions, so that he may continue about the business of the day.

Now I might not can say all that's the god's honest truth, owing to the complexities involved, but you'll not ever catch me saying it ain't.

[Zetesis Apistia]

From Post 633:

A police officer in a big city may conclude that the world is full of evil people because he sees so much of it everyday. Another person works in a flower shop and concludes that the world is full of thoughtful people. Each ones beliefs is just a reflection of his or her own reality. Neither position is scientific it is just an opinion formed by observation. Your lack of belief is a reflection of your reality and not the result of a scientific study. The same can be said for me. The simple truth is that the cop and the flower shop worker are both right, but neither would agree to it. The same can be said for you and me.

Ya had me in all that, but kinda lost me in the following...

To you there is no god, but to me there is. The question you might ask is, what is my reality that would bring me to embrace the God concept?

While I should certainly explore why you maintain belief in the god, I see a difference in the police/flower lady scenario and the declaration that there's some entity "up there". Evil and good are so clearly subjective opinions that I shan't argue with you there, but when you express an opinion as fact, when you ostensibly declare "bigfoot" exists, then you have a whole different deal going on.

You claim a god exists, and I claim one doesn't, so we should both be expected to support our respective contentions of fact without resorting to the emotional, subjective opinion of what constitutes good or evil.

Your opinion of what constitutes evil is worthy of my respect, even if I disagree, and barring the ridiculous. Your declaration that a god exists, sans your showing such is the case, is not worthy of my respect (except in the general sense that we ought'n just pick on folks).


I present the following as amateur opinion based on a lifetime of amateur study by an amateur, but swear up and down I've got the best of it here...

It is my contention that, ostensibly, you are here inserting the claim of a god's existence in order to support a claim that this or that notion is evil, or good. I propose this is kinda what the god concept is there for - to provide an "anchor", or "root" for concepts (here good and evil) that are otherwise nothing more than subjective opinion, but an opinion that holds great potential for conflict within the human mind.

"Why should I be good if there is no god?" A not uncommon refrain among theists, and we see in such an example that their mind is unable to hold onto the one concept - good vs. evil - without it has some anthropological "anchor", or "decider", or, let's all say it together, "rule giver".

I propose no nefarity here, nor do I propose an "idiot", or other derogatory mental system. I merely propose it is a faulty conclusion borne of a deep desire to feel as if one's conclusions regarding rather unsolvable questions have them some legitimacy. The mind seems none to proud of the subjective, owing to the desire to have an objective answer, where doubt doesn't cloud the issue. The mind is built on knowing far more than hoping, even if it ends up having to rely on the one more'n the other.

I answer the question of good versus evil with my own set of ethics and morality, informed by my own learnings, and society at large (to include religious notions), and have no real need to understand or expect my subjective opinion to be anything but just that. I'm a 'simpleton' that way. My mind is happy right there, for right or wrong, good or bad, and I move on about my day.

The theist, however, presents with a desire to "know" that there's some great, cosmic, all-knowing entity that agrees with him, and in nigh on all situations this will be an anthropomorphic entity. He seems, with all respect and I don't dare put him down, but he seems to have this deeply-rooted desire to feel like his morality is justified, is worthy, is the only way to go, for risk of an infinite loop of pondering a given concept (here morality). I propose he uses this god concept, this "image of myself, only totally wise and all that", in order to "solve" such questions, so that he may continue about the business of the day.

Now I might not can say all that's the god's honest truth, owing to the complexities involved, but you'll not ever catch me saying it ain't.

Joey thanks for your civility here. Very cool. Now to answer your question. My belief in god was not born out of a scientific hypothesis. It was not born out of a turn or burn message from some fire and brimstone hell fire preacher. It was not born out of some need to be validated. My born again experience was not a flash in the pants thrill up Chris Matthews leg kinda thing. However my born again experience was not only enough to leave a lasting impression on my mind, but it also resulted in a significant paradigm shift in my life that was pretty dramatic. It wasn't an external shift it was internal. I know what happened to me. That is my reality not yours. I probably have a better chance in convincing you that martians are living in area 53 as I do in convincing your intellect by an abnormal experience of mine.

If you hated the thought of eating fish eggs I doubt you would believe caviar was tasty even if I told you I tried it and found it to be delicious. You may even call me crazy for eating fish eggs. But if you tried caviar and found it to be tasty you would have to agree that your presupposition influenced your hatred for something that was in reality good.

[TheTruth101]

I suspect people simply have an inner need, a desire for meaning, for purpose. The human brain simply got too big [for 20% of us anyway ]. Our only purpose is to live long enough to reproduce and help our children live long enough so they too can reproduce. That's the biological imperative. That's all there is.

We, up to 80% of humans according to you, refuse to accept this. The desire to find meaning is stronger than the desire for truth or cautious judgment.

There is a rational alternative without resorting to fantasy and wishful thinking.
Make your own meaning. Life is a canvas. Paint!

Many find their purpose in helping others. Those who have recovered from serious drug addictions will tell you they get more meaning and help from their efforts to help others, than the help they give.

Creating art or literature, or building homes and roads, in addition to what it does for others, gives the builder satisfaction. Yes indeed, there seems to be a need to believe in the supernatural. Why not transform that irrational need into something real, into helping others and thus into helping yourself?

Tho' in many cases the task appears hopeless, I get satisfaction from helping others think more clearly.

Problem with this idea relies on self importance and self feeding. It's the weaker version of the truth.
One can simply do the same thing as you have said, but with God in mind. Thus, it relates to one giving credit to God instead of oneself, hence, one is not in awe of himself but a higher existent deity.It relates to one not in such self high, but rather stays humbled to oneself.
In all due meaning, its for our own good, as it is evident when one feels accomplishment from within,pride gets extreme, once that takes place, there will be conflicts all around, because there will always be another just around the corner that will have extreme egos as well.

Once conflicts become ones way of living, its a given one will lash out at their sorroundings, and the ones that are offended will eventually leave. Isolation will come, and when it does, one knowing there is no God, there will be no sign of hope. Hence, religion itself is an establishment set by God to the humankind for us to carry on when things get rough, to believe and have hope in the 'light', that there is a better existence after this.

Admitting one is weak is the strongest and most signifying thing one can say to another. Itexpresses humbleness, and at the same time it confesses oneself is not inhibited or plugged in with the judgements of another being, it rather amplifies independance and freedom from judgement of the society, in midst, offering trust.

It goes against the gateway of sin, pride. Hence, confession of one being in a state of powerlesness , or weak, takes a lot of understanding of life, known as wisdom, as well as humbleness, which is the opposite of pride, ultimately known as one of the heavenly virtues.

.

Much of what you say is one non sequitur after another. . . or wrong on its face. "A weaker version of truth"? The problem with this sentence may simply be your choice of words, but isn't something either true or not? One does not need god or a belief in god to have a purpose outside the self. One does not need belief his weakness to humble. There is nothing wrong with feeling important. Everyone IS important. Everyone can help others and feel empowered by helping. I'd be curious to know if anyone here would disagree with the statements, "I feel good when I help others. I often get more than I give when I do for others."

There is no benefit to feeling worthless or powerless.

The benefit of one noticing that the world does not evolve around oneself, but rather note that there are always another one around the corner that is smarter or stronger than onself is a clear form of one understanding life. Referenced as wisdom within the bible and also known as recognizing 'powerlessness' within. Surely, you have heard of one that graduated from a higher degree of education, and surely you have watched the world's strongest man compete. And if they were your actual friends in reality, you would admit to them being smarter and stronger. One cannot ignore this fact and pass it off as 'entertainers', all are real world beings, and have accomplished such notions under ones own life. In due meaning, admitting to be "weaker" than another. Funny thing is, God gave all a weaker and stronger side in comparison to another being, one that admits it are the ones that are actually "smart" and hold wisdom from within.

Benefits of one admitting powerless under God is all due in eternity.
Admitting powerlessness and weakness requires top status of self recognition and the wisdom of how the society functions.

To give you an example, since I like basketball, you can see it from how Kobe Bryant behaves within the media when he was charged with rape.All of a sudden, he started smiling a lot more on the court, and also, started picking the opposing players up from the court when they fell. Even now you can see he's starting to do the same thing since the Lakers are on a losing season, hes signing autographs to kids on court and also speaking a lot more in general media.

Here is the deal. When one is under suffering, then it is automatic the one feels weak, and in nature, when one admits to being weak, then the weak strives to reach out. In kobe Bryants case, reaching out to the media and the whole association of the NBA players, and within people of faith, reaching out to the ultimate creator,God.

Benefits given under both occasions is clearly seen as the other side offering mercy, and in case with Kobe, he earned mercy from the general public.
Within people of faith, mercy from God, and ultimately, earning eternity.

Change of attitude that effects the ideals of the other giving mercy can only begin if one is under trauma, suffering, or self acknowledgement to be weak.

As time goes by, one is looked upon as overcoming adversity, and eventually, be seen as a survivor.

Self importance and self envy only gets one to feel good within oneself, one recognizes he's done a good deed, though there is nothing wrong with it, the way human mind works, pride gets built within any given situations when one is under self accomplishment.
And as all know, pride is the gateway to all failure of life, simply because pride establishes discomfort to others, concluding to isolation from their given sorroundings eventually.

Consider what you say as the parable of the Good Samaritan, however, it is the ones that pleads mercy from God that gets placed in the highest level of the heavens.

Again, with one recognizing self weakness, one strives to reach out to others wholeheardetly, therefore, one is always open to another human being, in midst, creating many connections of the society.
As evident by the presidents today, only being made presidents by the people, or having connections to the people, Indeed if one recognizes the human mind of being held "weak" to the people, then in all we would have presidents that help the world out wholeheardedly. In conclusion, a better president.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 635:

Joey thanks for your civility here. Very cool. Now to answer your question.

I 'preciate that. Lacking the social graces, and considering the subject matter, I tried my best to offer "cold, clinical" analysis.

However my born again experience was not only enough to leave a lasting impression on my mind, but it also resulted in a significant paradigm shift in my life that was pretty dramatic. It wasn't an external shift it was internal. I know what happened to me. That is my reality not yours. I probably have a better chance in convincing you that martians are living in area 53 as I do in convincing your intellect by an abnormal experience of mine.

I've pretty much always said that we shouldn't just discount one's personal experience regarding gods. For all I know he's there, he just only acts on the person. That said, I stand by my conclusions, while admitting the posibility of error.

On that note, I have an experience in my life that, if I may, was a "god experience". Very surreal and emotional, it was. I couldn't much argue against someone telling me it was indeed such an experience, though I chalk it up to otherwise mundane forces (lifetime druggie but sober those minutes, mentally unstable, other such).

If you hated the thought of eating fish eggs I doubt you would believe caviar was tasty even if I told you I tried it and found it to be delicious. You may even call me crazy for eating fish eggs. But if you tried caviar and found it to be tasty you would have to agree that your presupposition influenced your hatred for something that was in reality good.

Actually, I found my one bite of caviar to be highly over-priced and rather bland, but that's just unsophisticated me, I guess. But fry up some Bream roe, and boy howdy!

Conclusion?

I don't doubt that your experience has convinced you of the existence of a god. I would though, stand by my explanation as a better way, even as I admit I'm an amateur who's capable of error on a professional scale

[Zetesis Apistia]

However my born again experience was not only enough to leave a lasting impression on my mind, but it also resulted in a significant paradigm shift in my life that was pretty dramatic. It wasn't an external shift it was internal. I know what happened to me. That is my reality not yours. I probably have a better chance in convincing you that martians are living in area 53 as I do in convincing your intellect by an abnormal experience of mine.

I've pretty much always said that we shouldn't just discount one's personal experience regarding gods. For all I know he's there, he just only acts on the person. That said, I stand by my conclusions, while admitting the posibility of error.

I cant argue with that.

On that note, I have an experience in my life that, if I may, was a "god experience". Very surreal and emotional, it was. I couldn't much argue against someone telling me it was indeed such an experience, though I chalk it up to otherwise mundane forces (lifetime druggie but sober those minutes, mentally unstable, other such).

Me mucho indulgo in the foo foo juice too. If it wasnt for my personal paradigm shift I would chalk it up to a microdot flashback from the seventies. But I'm convinced it was more than that. All I have is my own experience.

[ytrewq]

What the Conjunction Fallacy is saying, though it isn't clear in the equation used to define the Conjunction Rule, is that the Conjunction Rule only applies if the information added is:

less likely to be true than the initial proposition itself was OR, its likelihood cannot be assessed with confidence.

Let the proposition of the turth of a supernatural embellishment be regarded an uncertainty. Then, in the common vernauclar this is just saying

You cannot make an uncertainty more certain by adding an uncertain detail. If you do, you are committing the Conjunction Fallacy.