Spectrum wrote: ↑October 29th, 2017, 9:39 pm
<snipped>
To date there is no convincing proof for the existence of a God.
There's a difference between proving the existence of God and experiencing God as an object of "gnostic" immediacy.
"Proving" God is a matter of entering into public discourse to "win an argument" that putatively establishes God's reality on some external, public, or "peer-review" level.
Acquiring God-evidence, on the other hand, is the opposite of "proving" God, because the evidence is experience via subjective endeavor and is obtained only through private personal experience, not public discourse and material quantification.
If you find a rose blossom to be beautiful, that is your private and personal experience - evidence that speaks for itself.
But if you try to prove:
1. That the rose flower is indeed beautiful;
- and -
2. That your experience and interpretation of the rose is true and real
- then -
3. You've failed, because 1. and 2. above cannot be done, because the rose experience is wholly subjective and cannot be pulled out of the private psyche into the external observation for confirmation or denial. Even if you show the rose to others for them to see, handle, and smell, still
your experience is unique, ineffable and non-duplicable.
Ditto for all claimed God-experiences: due to their non-material, subjective and "qualia-toned" reference, they can't be pulled out of the individual subject and put on display for dissection.
That, in my view, is why theists who have
experience of God are not obligated to turn that internally received evidence into public proof. Unless, that is, they are foolish enough to proselytize about their private experience and insist that it can be proved as if it were identical to physical claims about the material universe. Best to keep the experience of the rose blossom to oneself, unless interested parties inquire about it. The same holds true, or ought to hold true, for claims of God-experience.