Vexen Crabtree 2015

vexen

Vexen Crabtree's Live Journal

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


Previous Entry Share Next Entry
TridentVexen
vexen

The Experience of God

"The Experience of God" by Vexen Crabtree

Interesting Article

(Anonymous)
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...

(Anonymous)
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:
http://www.dpjs.co.uk/needfordogma.html
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.

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.

http://www.vexen.co.uk/3/experience.html

So what?

(Anonymous)
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?

(no subject) (Anonymous) Expand
Re: No no no (Anonymous) Expand
(no subject) (Anonymous) Expand

Experiences of a personal god are illusions

(Anonymous)
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?

http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~js/cosmo/lectures/lec28.html

http://www.wisconsinmedicalsociety.org/savant/genetic_memory.cfm

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

Mike



The Wonder Of It All

(Anonymous)
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

(Anonymous)
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 yes...my 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 ^^

(Anonymous)
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

(Anonymous)
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.
steveberg@hotmail.co.uk

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.

you're silly.

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

Re:Your Silly

(Anonymous)
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.

Healing

(Anonymous)
What About Healing and Prayer? Is that fake too?

?

Log in

No account? Create an account