re: #673 b_sharp

Knowing that the brain can be fooled does not disprove anything by itself. It is only when taken in the context of other things that evidence can be taken in either direction. Despite the interesting conversation LVQ and I had, last night I believe, the onus is on believers to show what they experience isn’t something simpler, such as momentary electro-chemical changes. All it (artificial induction) does is remove the feelings you get from the pool of possible evidence for God. That argument is circular anyway.

That said, the ability to induce those feelings artificially does not disprove God as the inducer at other times.

Indeed, the experience a believer feels (imho) is not evidence to anyone but the believer, and shouldn’t be used as such. The onus is on me to be critical of what i feel and think, lest i put the divine stamp on any random passing fancy and crown myself king of some small compound in the mountains with 18 wives and 4-5 increasingly disgruntled men…

The feelings I have ought to be removed from the ‘pool of evidence for God’ out of sheer logic. The only proof they provide is personal…to me…and even then, i only accept them as personal proof of a relationship because they are at once repeatable, comforting, and terribly out of character. It’s that last part which lets me know who’s on the mental phone…