Vexen Crabtree 2015


Vexen Crabtree's Live Journal

Sociology, Theology, Anti-Religion and Exploration: Forcing Humanity Forwards

Previous Entry Share Next Entry

The Experience of God

"The Experience of God" by Vexen Crabtree

  • 1

Interesting Article

Very interesting take on the entire process of "Divine Experience". I would like to see you explore in more detail the various types of Devine Experience that people have, and how they can be both beneficial and detrimental.

God experiences - your views...

I've just read your theory on how all God experiences may be the result of wish-fulfilment etc. and would like to post the following questions:

1) Why would someone substitute "God" for a parent when they may already have two perfectly good ones.

2) How does your theory explain people like me who were militantly aetheistic and actually opposed to any notion of God, until God reached out to me?

3) Why would Christians invent a God which is not only loving, but just. In other words, why subject yourself to extremely high moral standards if all you are doing is trying to make yourseld feel better - being a Christian isn't easy!!

4) Your argument implied at one point that by ruling out some God experiences you can rule out all of them ("Once we admit that we can discount some experience of God, and simply state that some people, although they have personally experienced messages from God are actually wrong in trusting their experience, then we are faced with the atheistic possibility that actually all experiences of God are false...") - surely this is illogical. In a multiple choice exam there may be 3 wrong answers and 1 right one to choose from - using your theory, because some of them are wrong, all of them are wrong.

Re: God experiences - your views...

1) No-one is saying a person consciously chooses to substitute a made-up God for their parents. It's subconscious, and a complex. Also, not all people have two good parents, or even 1 good parent. Parents die. Children grow up and move away. But most importantly, everyone reaches a stage when they realize their parents aren't all-knowing, all-watching or perfectly reliable, that they're also as human as us. This is where the idea of God comes from (for people who go that way, anyway). It's not related to the quality of parenting.

2) Not all people develop in this way. It's probably genetical, or a complicated result of genes and environment. See:
for some comments on genes/disposition towards "religion" in general.

3) It's not a conscious choice. The reasons for accepting a religion (which is completely different to having a want for a godlike thing) are cultural.

4) My argument didn't "imply" that you could rule out all - it explicitly stated that it was possible. It is possible. Experience of life is not a multiple choice answer where there have to be "right" answers.

Re: God experiences - your views...

Hi Vexen,

Perhaps the idea that the Self is really God might be considered.

No matter how they are induced, these experiences are real, aren't they. Besides if they can be induced and it is known how they may be repeated, then surely it is real.

So, we have facts on one side and we have an assumption on the other. Change the assumption and review the facts. Instead of looking for God outside or above or below or around, what if the Self is God?

On that note, the question "what is God?" also becomes quite relevant. Not I said, what and not who.

Good luck - Stanley

True - life isn't multiple choice and their doesn't have to be a right answer - but that truism is a long way off saying that all experiences of God may be phoney just because some are. For instance, some scientific "facts" are phoney because the researcher's involved fabricated results etc - that doesn't mean that all scientific experiments are wrong. All I'm trying to get at is that saying that just because some experiences can be disproven doesnt mean to say you can disprove all of them.

No, but it is still possible that all experiences of God are explained by psycology and neurochemistry.

Talking of science: Unless there is a valid counter argument to a theory, the theory holds. There is plenty of evidence and examples of Human psychosis in spiritual matters, so my theory (not new, of course, the theory is as old as psychiatry) does not shock any atheists or scientists.

The alternative is to say, because people experience things, that those things are true. This means that the evidence for God is the same as the evidence for UFOs, Alien Abductions, etc, and would mean that polytheism is true, monotheism isn't. Etc. Either that, or admit that it's more likely that such experiences are typical human subconscious mistakes and are perhaps the price of species intelligence.

So what?

What is your conclusion? What do you think about God? FYI there is one.

I have seen Gods as I know them and even spoken to souls, without realising that I am speaking to a soul. These are all very true experiance I have had since young, so why is that you argue that God do not Exist.Is, because you have not ventured on the same.If you want to see a campfire far away you must make the attempt to journey to the location to see and enjoy the heat. If you fail to do so than it does not mean that the campfire is not happening.Modern Science can not even see or proof that the human soul exsist, I for one know through experiances, beyond believe, that they do, so am I to doubt my very own experiances, which some other beings have also witness to a certain extend?Pl reply with your own experiances, as there are as many Individual Worlds as to the populace of this World???

What *don't* you believe in?

The universe has design, and design is a sign of intelligence. I don't believe that design can just occur. Why does the universe abide by laws? That is the proof which must be disproved.

Do you believe in the Islamic God, Allah? Ahura Mazda? All the Hindu Gods?

If you don't believe in all the other gods, why is it you can't understand why I don't believe in yours?

Thats not the way to think of Gods. You people think way too close to your own minds. You take into account "neuro chemistry" and stuff. You said in one article that if God was fair, he would implant knowlege of Jesus into our brains. This would destroy the test of faith because it would be too easy. So maye these subconcious feelings and neaurotically implanted passions for religion are Gods' way of giving us a chance to believe in God, even if we have never actually read one of His books, so that then we would feel the NEED to read Gods' holy book (In my belief the Quraan, because it held many scientific secrets for thousands of years before they only came to light to scientists recently... how could a "simple illitarete" prophet like Muhammed *PBUH* put those in just out of guessing??!)

You have contradicted yourself here, and I'll do all I can to disprove you Vixen. Of course youll do all you can to disprove my theories and observassions, but rest assured... you'll have defeated a 15 year old and it's nothingto be proud of.

Age is irrelevant; productive debate helps people of all ages.

So you're saying that faith is impossible once you have knowledge? OK, so do people have "right faith" when they believe in things you believe in (Such as your own conception of monotheistic god), or do they have faith no matter which religion they believe in? It seems to me that God either has many, many personalities and manifestations (in short, that Hinduism and polytheism is true), or that no-one knows what we should be having faith IN. I mean, how do we even know that any Human Being has thought up a version of divinity even /close/ to how things are? Without knowledge, our faith could be in all the wrong things! The famous question is... the most important question... how do you know that the most popular religions aren't invented by malevolent demons?

I dont know where you got the assumption about the many manifestations of God. Faith can be given to anything, but there is only one true religious faith which is Islam. Faith and Knowledge are intertwined, as is displayed in the Quraan. I know that noone could have possibly 'thought up' the whole of the quraan. There is a mathematical puzzle in it's pages that I am currently researching into, that I hear had to be decifered using a super computer. An Illiterate person such as The Prophet Muhammed (Peace Be Upon Him) could not have possibly thought up such a mathematical intricasy at that day and age. It's probably less probable that someone 'thought up' the Quraan than the Big Bang just happening out of nothing, or whatever insane explanation for the universe coming from nothing that Atheists may think up.

How do you know that the most popular religions aren't 'invented' by the Almighty Himself? To simply say that Demons may have created it is just absurd. You might as well say "How do you know that this isnt all a dream?". I know this, because I have faith, something that Atheists attempt to belittle the value of. Without faith, we have nothing to look forward to. You have faith in that you will wake up tommorrow, fit and healthy etc.

Also, the demons must posses incredible scientific knowlege of the universe and the future to be able to right the quraan, which I know only God could possess, because there have been several examples of the fulfillment of both scientific revelations in the quraan and also many prophecies.

Re: No no no

I just want to know one thing that science cant seem to explain how can physical things unlock unphysical things eg thoughts feelings the sense of being. Sure we have brains so we can think and bodys so we can move, but how does that unlock unphysical things. The formless things make up everything.

In Hinduism there is only One God. "Each Discrete Form of the One God" is made manifest for the specific performance of a discrete duty of the One God.
God consciousness can be achieved by worshop of any of the multiple forms of the One God.

Experiences of a personal god are illusions

Very thought provoking website as were the replies and comments.

One point was that "If you have knowledge you cannot have faith", which straight away reminds me of the Bible's Genesis account regarding the tree of knowledge. Also how BACs believe they are born again by Holy Spirit and can do no wrong, yet others believe Jesus is within them guiding their thoughts and actions. Hence 'No faith required once you have knowledge." (Or Spirit, or Jesus, or Billy Graham, or George Bush, etc.)

Elsewhere it talks about Aliens and UFOs and how many people believe to have been abducted, possessed by another life form or spirit. We now begin to understand the physiology the human mind.
The article goes on to suggest that such belief in a superior guiding father figure may be the result of a physiological need for humans to have faith in another with superior knowledge, whether a deity or another person, to guide their lives and destiny, a father figure in fact.
We can see this with the blind faith that people have with religion and politicians. Combine religion with politics and despot dictators can rule the world, as they are doing. People will give them their obedience, money, blood (life), even sacrifice their children, to appease them, that fact is so obvious in the world of today. A really scary realisation.
So, from a biological point of view, why do humans have this physiological need to believe and be lead by a superior being?
Could it be genetic memory, or could it be for survival of the species?

I think these two websites go some way to answering the question.


The Wonder Of It All

I'm glad that you are confident in your findings and want to share, and provided the place for others to comment. My comment is this: I believe that the reason there can be no outer proof of God is because God exists within you (within each of us). You alone live inside yourself, seeing, watching, knowing, experiencing your experiences, reading this now. You are the experiencer and the observer of your self - and God lives with you every moment of your life. This is where self-consciousness begins, self-awareness. If you remain aware and follow yourself inward as deep as you can go, "feeling" your way to your core (instead of thinking) you will notice a change in your vibration. You will feel a buzzing sensation in yourself that will lighten and lift you into a happier place inside. But, don't take my word for it, that kind of proof comes only from actually trying it. Why should anyone believe in God if they haven't actually taken any time to seek out if God is real for them? From the seeking I have done in my search for God, I have found that God does exist for me - not the "wanting" of believing for something to take care of me, but a presence that is bigger than me, that encompasses me with love. Where does that love come from? No one can show me or you God, or prove it. One has to know for oneself if God exists for them. Direct experience is the best teacher, but then again, how many people are willing to be open, sincere, and take a risk of going deep within themselves to get their findings? Words are just words, theories. Experience can not be proved, it can only be known by the knower.

It is good stuff

Good sir, I am pleased to read of such things. A non Christian using factual evidence, not guesses or accusations of God based on poor or incorrect interpretation of scripture. I am a Christian myself, and I attempt to be examine all evidence and eliminate personal bias of any sort, because I understand to live a life of ignorance and to believe in something false is a sad venture. My parents are of course, flawed. They brought me and my brothers up quite badly, with the Alcoholism, and fighting etc. I can truly say that I am not possessed by any want for a super father of any sort. I rather want to BE a super father for children I may possibly have. I took the bad examples of my parents and simply built my personality off those examples. I have virtually become the opposite, and can't stand drinking at all, or other such drugs. My belief in God is not influenced by an egotistical need to feel special either. I don't feel these feelings when it comes to God. Your theories can of course explain many things, but it would be right to claim they would not apply to each and every individual. I am someone who tends to believe based upon weighing evidences. I do have presuppositions which say ''God exists'', and granting true objectivity is hard for anyone, that is acceptable. I simply try my best. I enjoy logical argumentation and such. An example of such logical positions for God would be something like this;

1. The universe is not infinitely old because it has not "run down."
A. If the universe were infinitely old, it would have reached a state where all usable energy is gone.
B. But, we are not in this state; therefore, the universe is not infinitely old and must have had a beginning.

2. Because the universe has had a beginning it is not infinite in size.
A. It would require an infinite amount of time to become infinite in size. Since the universe had a beginning, it has not had an infinite amount of time to expand, therefore it is finite in size.

3. All events have causes.
A. There cannot be an infinite regress of events because that would mean the universe were infinitely old.
B. If it were infinitely old, the universe would be in a state of unusable energy, which it is not.
C. If it were infinitely old, the universe would be infinitely large, which it is not.

4. Since the universe is finite and had a beginning and there cannot be an infinite number of regressions of causes to bring it into existence, there must be a single uncaused cause of the universe.
A. A single uncaused cause of the universe must be greater in size and duration than the universe it has brought into existence, otherwise, we have the uncaused cause bringing into existence something greater than or equal to itself.
B. Any cause that is natural to the universe is part of the universe.
C. An event that is part of the universe cannot cause itself to exit.
D. Therefore, there must be an uncaused cause outside the universe.
E. An uncaused cause cannot be a natural part of the universe which is finite.
F. An uncaused cause would be infinite in both space and time since it is greater than which it has caused to exist.

5. This uncaused cause is supernatural.
A. By supernatural I mean it is completely 'other' than the universe - is not natural to it.
B. This would make the uncaused cause supernatural.
C. This uncaused cause is God.

Things like so. That isn't the only one, but a good one I believe. But, bias and preconcieved ideas should never get in the way of what is TRUE, do you agree? For example, an unfossilised Tyrannosaurus skeleton unearthed in 1990(in the united states)had red blood cells intact. The evidence that hemoglobin has indeed survived in this dinosaur bone casts immense doubt upon the ''millions of years'' idea, which would then cast immense doubt over the evolutionary theory in the whole. Of course, I have several more examples. Those are a few. I truly disagree with guesses and opinions on these matters. But belief in God is not spurred by any such needs. Aside from the fact I believe he's helped me, I am spurred by necessity due to logical evidences etc. But, this too long. And I could probably talk for too long, so thanks for reading if you did ^^ And goodbye for now =)

One more thing ^^

I'm going to read all your sites extensively, because what I have read so far is damned brilliant argumentation/logic on your end =)

I pray that one day the author will come to love God and know Him as intimately as I have... I'm praying for you and may God bless you and your household.

experiences of God

Everything we experience is nothing more than a bunch of neurotransmitters and all of the possible combinations thereof. God isn't real, love isn't real, even devotion, passion, and loyalty isn't real. Isn't that lovely? If you don't eat enough protein (building blocks of neurotransmitters), you probably won't have any ambition either.

Hope this is helpful, Marianne

if you don't believe in god, then why waste your time refuting him?

Because I believe in the truth, and I think the truth is important enough to debate over.

You will not find the truth by only talking to people about things that everyone already agrees on.

I can’t believe that in this day and age more people can’t see what is blatantly staring them in the face. Look, science knows that the illusion of solid matter is achieved via an energy fluctuation much like flashing pixels on a tv screen. If energy is an abstract containing no mass, in fact the illusion of mass is achieved via the energy pulsation from an neg to pos state at a set frequency. If energy is an abstract then there can be no boundary within the energy, boundaries are of matter, then the energy that makes up everything then makes your arm, your leg, your jacket and your consciousness. We are living in a mindscape! Now, for god’s sake. What this God actually is, is an infinite body of conscious energy which is a paradox in terms because you can’t know the infinite because it can’t be sized or quantified in any way. So, without too much explanation because this information is going to come out soon anyhow. We are all finite reflections of the unknowable infinite unrealised conscious energy mass.
All of our subconsciouses are the same place, this is why you think of someone and then they phone.
I am embarrassed by so called men of science who have no real explanation for anything saying that God is the delusion. Don’t you get it? Everything else is the fucking delusion. The body of consciousness is the only thing that is real.
I can explain how it works if anyone is actually interested, but then the whole God thing is totally overrated because we get to see God in each other everyday and on this planet at this time God is no more than a money whore who spends too much time talking shit, fighting, talking behind peoples backs and looking in the mirror.

Psuedoscience (You are waffling)

1. Energy (always in packets, called photos) has mass. It is measured by E=mc squared. Yeah, Einstein's famous and ground-breaking equation that has enabled physics and engineering to progress in leaps and bounds proves that energy has mass. Energy and mass are basically the same; waves and particles are the same but behaving differently according to their context. Your whole waffle ('energy is an abstract' -> that has no meaning! Nonsense!) is based on some weird and false ideas of what energy is.

The "energy" that makes up your arm, consciousness, etc, is itself divided into billions of discrete packets all interacting like waves on the surface of a pool of water; there is no mystical energy of spiritual value; just E=mc2. (Energy = Mass * SpeedOfLightSquared), or in other words, the mass of a photon is m = energy / SpeedOfLightSquared, and all consciousness and matter results as a result of the interaction of energy in the forms of basic particles. No magic, no god, no mystical delusions.

There is no such thing as "infinite unrealised conscious energy mass".

There is no "body of consciousness" that is seperate from normal energy/mass.

Re: Psuedoscience (You are waffling)

(e=mc squared) raised to the power of zero = 1

Re: Psuedoscience (You are waffling)

It is true that if you raise any number to zero, then the result is "1". Likewise if you divide any number by zero, the result is infinity.

But I don't know what your point was...

Re: Psuedoscience (You are waffling)

Chambers C20 dictionary, page 1644
Mathematical Symbols:

X to the power 0 = 1

X represents any number. Unity is produced irrespective of the number. But, since all numbers may be unified by raising them discretely to the power of zero, then all numbers have both a constant unity and a variable place value in the system of counting.

E = MC squared. E, M and C are all algebraic letters used in this equation to represent numbers which will equal unity when raised to the power of zero.

Infinity is a logical set which contains all known and unknown numbers. But, all of these numbers will equal unity if raised to the power of zero. when all the numbers in the logical set of infinity have been unified they can be multiplied together in an infinite series of discrete calculations to produce unity.

(1 x 1 = 1 -----> infinity) = 1 Thus infinity to the power of zero = 1, since there is no known or unknown number which will not equal unity when raised to the power of zero.

When Infinite Unity is produced, relative numbers cease to exist. when Energy, Mass and Light are unified they cease to exist as independent entities.

If energy, Mass and Light are unified and they cease to exist as independent entities, What do they become?

This question is wrongly put.

If all numbers may be unified, then the suggestion is that there is a Unified Plane of Reality just as there is a Differentiated Plane of Reality.

Somewhere in your writing, you have mentioned The One Dimension. One dimension is Unified. On a Unified Plane of Reality, there cannot be a second or a third. Time cannot exist because it is in Three Great Categories: The Past, the Present, and the Future. Space has Ten Directions:
North South East West; North East, North West, South East South West, Nadir and Zenith.

Speech cannot exist because words are discrete entities. If all words are unified, then they cease to exist.

On the Unified Plane of Reality, nothing exists. It is void and empty of all concepts.

It is silent.

Re: Psuedoscience (You are waffling)

What a horrible, confused mix of English-usage and maths-terms; just because all numbers obey the same rules in maths, does not mean that the underlying reality that they are measuring are forced into an English interpretation of the word "unity".

For example, X (a quantity of apples) and Y (a quantity of shoes), are both equal to "1" if you raise them to the power of zero. It does not mean that shoes and apples have "unity" - whatever that means.

Energy, mass and the speed of light have a relationship described by E=MC2, but, because you can raise each part of that equation (or the whole) to zero and get the value of "1" doesn't say anything about the underlying measurement.

It merely means that anything raised to the power of zero is 1: This does not have mystical or theological implications, and it certainly doesn't mean that there is a "Unified Plane of Reality just as there is a Differentiated Plane of Reality"; there aren't even such things as "planes of reality".

And none of this applies to "words", because words are not numerical. You can't raise a "word" to the power of zero and get "A" (the first letter). It simply makes no sense to apply the principles of maths in the places where you are applying them.

you're silly.

one day you'll know there is a god.
one day.
god bless.

Re:Your Silly

I agree.
And about the paragraph where you said that Experiences with God" are an illusion, tell that to my Mum who spat on the ground, rubbed the mud in a blind womans eyes who became immediately healed. And tell that to my friend 'Anthony' who died when he was 8 years old, saw Jesus, rose from the dead and I'm seeing him this Saturday. And tell that to the girl who had a majorly broken leg who ran around the youth center shortly after people prayed for her.


What About Healing and Prayer? Is that fake too?

You remind me of a child trying to describe ice cream without ever eating any. You have taken what other people have expressed concerning God and their experience and attempted to disprove existence based on what you believe them to be saying.

You do not have a basic disaproval theory that is built upon anything factual for it is evident you do not have sufficient knowledge to construct such a foundational theory to launch a counter theory.

I find you tremendously funny and ridiculous. You display an image, supposedly of you being dressed as a trident wielding satanic image. If that be the case, I would like to remind you according to basic old testament theology that satan was/is a created being. Created by the very God you seek to explain away. I find it to be a pure oxymoron.
If there is no God, there is no satan and you or someone is acting as a fool. The fool has said in his heart there is no God, and you look as a fool. I do not care if you respond or not to this comment. I think you are an object lesson in ignorance. I remember a quote from the Bible, it goes something like this, " much learning hath made thee mad". You are a mad man that knows so little and thinks he knows so much. Do you wear make up all the time?
Donald Jolley PhD.

Your post would be useful if you perhaps presented an example of what knowledge I am missing about God. There's no point attacking an argument unless you actually present a counter-argument! No-one with a PhD could engage in an argument in such a pathetic way!

Experience of God

You say 'people interpret experience according to their culture and what they want to see/feel/hear/believe!'

What about mystical experiences where the experienced does not interpret it?

What about those encounters where one is as perplexed and un-knowing and not looking for supernatural explanations. Where the experience is so novel, there is nothing in memory or knowldge to interpret it? Are they false too?

I have personally experienced the Holy Spirit. He came to me as a mighty wind a force so great that it sounded like a fighter jet was about to crash into my home. That is what I thought was happening.

With this mighty force came an enormous sense of peace. So peaceful that I have never experienced such peace since. The Mighty Wind turned into a gentle breeze. During the gentle breeze my eyes were opened. It was as if I had been blind all my life until then.

It was not until after that I was able to make sense of it. So you cannot attribute it to wishful thinking.

You believe what you want. I can testify to the Holy Spirit in my life.

Before this event. I was shy and bashful. After, I am bold, confident, outspoken and others comment on the power I possess. I do not feel this power. Others tell me they feel it when they approach me. They tell me I speak with authority. I do not feel authority.

I do not have explanations for things I do not understand. I have explained to others things I do not understand and while I was explaining [that is doing the talking] I too was being taught as I spoke. My vocal cords doing the talking, not my brain doing the thinking.

How does your psychology explain that!


You said until there is proof, there is no sense in believing in God. It may not make sense to you but it may to many others that may also need to believe in God to lean toward personal goodness and several other things to do with life and being. And for you to tell people such things is foolish of you. Just look at yourself. Empty inside. I will definitely have the last laugh to see you when you reach the other side someday and put your foot in your mouth.

  • 1

Log in