Let's Present Some Evidence ...

[Copernicus]

I'm not proposing supernatural causes. I don't view "God" as being "supernatural". I'm simply pointing out that these things happen when people choose to use the "God idea" in their lives. And I am further pointing out that you can't in the least way prove that the results they are getting are tricks or illusions of some kind.

But I have never offered to prove anything of the sort. Similarly, I am not required to believe that an illusionist has supernatural powers if I cannot figure out what the trick is. The ultimate question is what would license belief in supernatural causes, as opposed to natural ones. Now, you like to pretend that there is no difference between the "supernatural" and the "natural", but there is. Natural causes are those that follow purely physical laws of nature. Supernatural ones are those that operate outside of our plane of existence. A "spiritual" plane of existence is a supernatural one, and we need something more than mere speculation or assertion to license belief in it. We all believe in the physical plane of existence, because that is what we experience every day.

That is, of course, only your opinion.

Indeed. Are you claiming to have something more than an opinion on this subject? The question is what we offer to license our beliefs, not whether those beliefs are opinions.

There are a lot of different kinds of faith, and ways of applying it. Some of these have been failures, and some have not. For every spectacular failure there will be a spectacular success...

Really? That is utter nonsense. Apparent successes are few and far between, compared to the failures. Nothing fails quite so spectacularly and quite so often as prayer. Believers are always trying to rationalize God's deaf ear to their pleas.

...I suspect that faith is not something we humans understand very well, and so we often misuse and misapply it, getting bad results. But this in no way mitigates the viability of faith as an idea or as a paradigm for action.

Nonsense. Doing the same action over and over again but expecting different results is living in pure denial. We humans understand false faith very well, for those who have faith almost always believe that they are in the lucky minority. Most of the rest of the human race, although possessing honest faith in a god or gods, have somehow had the misfortune to be sadly misinformed.

I'm not here to discuss religious doctrines of faith. I don't represent any of them and so can't speak for them.

That's not what I said. I said nothing of doctrines. We were talking about faith, not specific doctrines.

Just because you can trick someone using a placebo doesn't mean that everyone who us healed by a means that you don't understand and can't control is being tricked.

Again, that is not what I said. Placebos usually work because of belief, not because they really have curative powers. Sugar pills add calories, but they don't actually cure the symptoms that they can be shown to cure. It is faith (belief) that stimulates the immune system into actually causing relief.

 

[PureX]

But I have never offered to prove anything of the sort. Similarly, I am not required to believe that an illusionist has supernatural powers if I cannot figure out what the trick is. The ultimate question is what would license belief in supernatural causes, as opposed to natural ones. Now, you like to pretend that there is no difference between the "supernatural" and the "natural", but there is. Natural causes are those that follow purely physical laws of nature. Supernatural ones are those that operate outside of our plane of existence. A "spiritual" plane of existence is a supernatural one, and we need something more than mere speculation or assertion to license belief in it. We all believe in the physical plane of existence, because that is what we experience every day.

Our experience of existence is limited, and partial. We therefor don't know it's limitations, and cannot discern when existence is natural or "supernatural". I choose to believe that these are not antithetical states. "God" is "supernatural" in the sense that God is defined as being the creator and sustainer of all that exists. Yet all that exists, exists as a natural expression of "God".

But this is a chosen belief. As a human being I do not possess the capabilities required to verify such a belief. So all I can do is offer my opinion. And my opinion is that "God" does not act or exist "unnaturally" relative to us. So when we experience "God", we are doing so in a natural way. And that being the case, the physical mechanisms of that experience may be determined (though we don't have that ability, yet). The point is that for me, a physical explanation of an experience of "God" does not negate "God" as part of the experience. As an analogy: just because we may explain the biochemical mechanism of a specific thought does not negate the fact that I was thinking. Nor does it render the idea contained in that thought 'unreal'.

Indeed. Are you claiming to have something more than an opinion on this subject? The question is what we offer to license our beliefs, not whether those beliefs are opinions.

Good point. I stand ... reminded. *smile*

Really? That is utter nonsense. Apparent successes are few and far between, compared to the failures. Nothing fails quite so spectacularly and quite so often as prayer. Believers are always trying to rationalize God's deaf ear to their pleas.

Your bias is showing a bit, here. There are lots of different kinds of prayers. Supplication may be a common form of prayer but it's not the only form, and even it is successful more than you think, depending n what is asked for. As an example, if I pray for the winning lotto numbers this week, I am very likely to be disappointed. Yet if I pray for patience with my family and friends, because I've noticed myself lacking in this area, lately, I am very likely to find myself being more patient almost immediately. And the reason is that the prayer itself will help me to remember that I want to be more patient, and that in turn will help me to do so.

I personally have trouble with being grateful in life. The old alcoholic in me wants to see everything as darker than it is so that I will have a ready excuse to drink. So when I pray, I pray in gratitude, rather than supplication. I don't ask God for things. I thank God for what I have. And I'm not doing this because I believe God wants or needs my gratitude. I do it because I need to stay grateful for my life to help me stay sober. And I find that this works for me.

Again, my point here is that when our interaction with this "God-idea" is based on natural expectations, it generally works for us. But when we base our interaction with "God" on supernatural expectations, we are likely to be disappointed. This isn't because God is not "real", it's because God acts in our lives, naturally. God's existence is being expressed naturally, not supernaturally, in my opinion.

That's not what I said. I said nothing of doctrines. We were talking about faith, not specific doctrines.

You were referring to faith as religious belief systems. I was referring to faith as the act of trusting in the unknown. I don't represent any specific religious belief system or "faith" and so can't presume to speak for them. I can only present and defend my own.

Again, that is not what I said. Placebos usually work because of belief, not because they really have curative powers. Sugar pills add calories, but they don't actually cure the symptoms that they can be shown to cure. It is faith (belief) that stimulates the immune system into actually causing relief.

I know. The pills are phony, and so have no effect. The faith is real, and so has a real effect. But it's not faith as in religious dogma, it's faith as in trusting in an unknown entity or condition.

 

[rrosskopf]

Originally posted by Purex
I know. The pills are phony, and so have no effect. The faith is real, and so has a real effect. But it's not faith as in religious dogma, it's faith as in trusting in an unknown entity or condition.

In this case, faith appears to be little more than a thought that prevents worry. Perhaps worry is the real culprit here. Worry leads to fear. Prolonged fear may have a deliterious effect.

For the purpose of this forum, I believe the real question concerns religious faith, or trusting in the revelations of God. The only way anyone can know God first-hand is by revelation. We might suppose that there is a creator, by viewing the organized patterns that everywhere appear, but only first-hand experience can lead to knowledge. Even then, there might be a gulf between what we believe God to be, and what he actually is. Knowing that there is some supernatural entity that claims to be God, would not in and of itself prove that said entity was in fact the one and only true God, assuming that God must be alone. Logic would dictate that if there is one of something, other than the universe itself, which by definition includes all things, then there must be more than one. (I don't know how people get around the definition of universe in order to postulate multiple universes - to me this is pure nonsense.) Any nature, intelligence, or theory that can produce one entity, can produce another. It isn't logic that leads people to believe in one master of the universe, but an intrepretation of scripture, which is considered to be inspired or revealed of God. We can only know God when he reveals himself to us. Similarly, before today, you probably didn't know that I existed. Then I made a comment...
If we can only know God by revelation, then faith in him is based on trust built by testing those revelations. One might expect a bit more than good health or prolonged life. The placebo effect would not apply.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Wow! 151 pages later and we still have zero point zero evidence for the existence of God.

 

[rrosskopf]

Would you accept my sworn testimony that there is a God as evidence? If not, how about the provenance of the Book of Mormon? Would you accept modern prophecies and revelations as evidence of a supreme being? How about faith healings; would you accept those as evidence of a God? What about life itself? Doesn't our apparent intelligence donote the likelihood of beings that are more intelligent? A person that sees no evidence for the existence of God, is a person that willfully chooses to be blind.

 

[JMorris]

Would you accept my sworn testimony that there is a God as evidence? If not, how about the provenance of the Book of Mormon? Would you accept modern prophecies and revelations as evidence of a supreme being? How about faith healings; would you accept those as evidence of a God? What about life itself? Doesn't our apparent intelligence donote the likelihood of beings that are more intelligent? A person that sees no evidence for the existence of God, is a person that willfully chooses to be blind.

:drool:lol, when people like you come to the forum its a sheer joy.

 

[Diederick]

Would you accept my sworn testimony that there is a God as evidence? If not, how about the provenance of the Book of Mormon? Would you accept modern prophecies and revelations as evidence of a supreme being? How about faith healings; would you accept those as evidence of a God? What about life itself? Doesn't our apparent intelligence donote the likelihood of beings that are more intelligent? A person that sees no evidence for the existence of God, is a person that willfully chooses to be blind.

Right, but have you yourself not chosen to be blind by ignoring all the scientific evidence which shows a world that functions perfectly without a deity? And why are you LDS, why not Muslim or Hindu? What makes your cult better than the others?

Most people see what they want to see, only few actually try to see what is really there.

And about your evidence: if you are that certain you are willing to make a sworn testimony of it, I would like to hear your motivation for believing in your God. Holy books, prophecies and revelations are all made by people, with their own agendas and their own ideas. They cannot be verified. Faith healings don't exist, unless you are talking about the placebo function of faith, I could buy that. Life itself is more proof of a lack of Deity than it is proof of Deity.

I love the last one. By your reasoning, everything that has some intelligence, has to have been made by something even more intelligent. But this argument destroys itself in infinity. If we were made by something more intelligent than ourselves, then who made that something? And who made the something that made the something? Etc. This way you rule out a beginning, which is impossible for something as complex and obviously finite as life and thereby intelligence.

 

[PureX]

Would you accept my sworn testimony that there is a God as evidence?

I would accept it as evidence in favor of the idea that God exists, but I would not accept it as proof.

If not, how about the provenance of the Book of Mormon?

I will not accept the words of men as the word of God. Ever.

Would you accept modern prophecies and revelations as evidence of a supreme being?

No. Again, I will not accept the words of men as the word of God.

How about faith healings; would you accept those as evidence of a God?

Yes, but only as evidence, not as proof.

What about life itself?

Life, and in particular consciousness, leads us to ask questions that lead us to the question of the existence of God. And I take this as evidence in favor of the idea that God exists. But it is not proof.

Doesn't our apparent intelligence donote the likelihood of beings that are more intelligent?

No, but it does imply that we are meant to ask questions about such things.

 

[Copernicus]

Would you accept my sworn testimony that there is a God as evidence? If not, how about the provenance of the Book of Mormon? Would you accept modern prophecies and revelations as evidence of a supreme being? How about faith healings; would you accept those as evidence of a God? What about life itself? Doesn't our apparent intelligence donote the likelihood of beings that are more intelligent? A person that sees no evidence for the existence of God, is a person that willfully chooses to be blind.

No, I wouldn't accept any of those things as reasonable evidence that God exists, but that's not the important question. The important question is why you accept such arguments as evidence. You won't accept the sworn testimony of a Hindu that Vishnu exists. There are faith healings in all religions, not just yours. And even if there are more intelligent beings than us, that does not make the case that God must exist. By your own logic, there would have to be a more intelligent being than God, so the argument eats its own tail.

So the question remains: why do you find those things to be evidence?

 

[Copernicus]

Your bias is showing a bit, here. There are lots of different kinds of prayers. Supplication may be a common form of prayer but it's not the only form...

It is the most common form, and it is no accident that those who say prayers adopt the same postures of obeisance and submission that they have historically done when supplicating to human beings in a position of power. When we heap praise on other humans, we do so with the expectation that our behavior will keep us in good graces with the object of our affection. We give gifts, but we always expect gratitude and reciprocation. An expectation of reciprocity is at the foundation of our social structures.

...and even it is successful more than you think, depending n what is asked for...

Why should it depend on what is asked for?

...As an example, if I pray for the winning lotto numbers this week, I am very likely to be disappointed....

Exactly so, because the law of probability would otherwise be violated. More often than not, though, lottery winners do not hesitate to praise God for their fortune. It seems that there has to be some improbable winner, even if there is no God.

Yet if I pray for patience with my family and friends, because I've noticed myself lacking in this area, lately, I am very likely to find myself being more patient almost immediately. And the reason is that the prayer itself will help me to remember that I want to be more patient, and that in turn will help me to do so.

I hope that you don't find it strange if I say that I get the same results without divine intervention. That is, I find that patience, understanding, and some self-sacrifice is necessary to keep friends and family friendly. It only makes sense, after all.

I personally have trouble with being grateful in life. The old alcoholic in me wants to see everything as darker than it is so that I will have a ready excuse to drink. So when I pray, I pray in gratitude, rather than supplication. I don't ask God for things. I thank God for what I have. And I'm not doing this because I believe God wants or needs my gratitude. I do it because I need to stay grateful for my life to help me stay sober. And I find that this works for me.

I think that AA is one of the ways in which religion can be made to work for people. There are non-theistic versions of AA, and alcoholic atheists have been known to stop drinking. I couldn't say whether they are more successful than religious alcoholics, however.

Again, my point here is that when our interaction with this "God-idea" is based on natural expectations, it generally works for us. But when we base our interaction with "God" on supernatural expectations, we are likely to be disappointed...

This is an important thing to remember, since most people see God as a supernatural being that is capable of performing miracles. He should not only be able to bring about cancer remissions, but also to restore lost limbs. Unfortunately, we only find miracles of the cancer remission sort, and those can be explained without reference to divine interventions.

This isn't because God is not "real", it's because God acts in our lives, naturally. God's existence is being expressed naturally, not supernaturally, in my opinion.

This is the only possible way that I can see for a reasonable person to retain belief. It doesn't explain why God doesn't express his existence in terms of easily verifiable miracles, but belief would be impossible if we demanded it of God. A more reasonable inference, IMO, is that God only expresses his existence naturally because he doesn't really exist. So all of his interventions can be (indeed, have to be) accounted for without having to posit his existence.

You were referring to faith as religious belief systems. I was referring to faith as the act of trusting in the unknown. I don't represent any specific religious belief system or "faith" and so can't presume to speak for them. I can only present and defend my own.

An individual belief system is still a belief system.

I know. The pills are phony, and so have no effect...

False. The pills have a very real effect, just not the effect that the pill-taker believes they have.

...The faith is real, and so has a real effect. But it's not faith as in religious dogma, it's faith as in trusting in an unknown entity or condition.

Note that placebos only work if the faith in their curative powers is real. That they work for you does not validate the conclusion that they have real curative power. To make that case, you need a scientific study. Ditto for God.

 

[PureX]

It is the most common form, ...

How do you know this? Most prayers are said in silence and in private. Couldn't this assumption on your part be the product of a bias?

... and it is no accident that those who say prayers adopt the same postures of obeisance and submission that they have historically done when supplicating to human beings in a position of power.

An expression of deference and humility is not always an expression of need or desire.

When we heap praise on other humans, we do so with the expectation that our behavior will keep us in good graces with the object of our affection.

I don't. And I know a lot of other people who don't do this as well. When I praise someone, it's because I want them to know that they are appreciated. I'm not doing it because I expect anything in return.

We give gifts, but we always expect gratitude and reciprocation. An expectation of reciprocity is at the foundation of our social structures.

I think you're wrong. When I give someone a gift, it's because I want them to know that I think of them, and appreciate them. It's not because I expect them to give me something back. If I had such an expectation, what I'm giving them wouldn't be a gift, anymore. And I don't believe that most other people feel any differently than I do about this. I honestly believe that you are painting people in a darker and more selfish color than they deserve, here.

Why should it depend on what is asked for?

Why shouldn't it? There's a big difference between praying for some money to help out a friend in need, and asking for a gun to kill my father, for example.

I hope that you don't find it strange if I say that I get the same results without divine intervention. That is, I find that patience, understanding, and some self-sacrifice is necessary to keep friends and family friendly. It only makes sense, after all.

Yes, but there are lots of people who simply don't find these abilities within themselves, to give. And so instead they find that they must ask their god for help with this.

I think that AA is one of the ways in which religion can be made to work for people. There are non-theistic versions of AA, and alcoholic atheists have been known to stop drinking. I couldn't say whether they are more successful than religious alcoholics, however.

Yes, I have been to "quad A" meetings (Atheists and Agnostics Alcoholics Anonymous). They are able to function in the same way as regular AA because they call the group as a whole their "higher power". Their success rate is similar to AA, but they face the added difficulty of having to "translate" standard AA literature and practice to fit their own views. My opinion, here, is that it's a bit silly, and unnecessary, and is often based on some religious resentments that should be addressed through the steps rather than catered to by altering words. AA is non-denominational and non-religious, and an atheist can easily function without any repercussions in the regular AA program. However, that being said, I welcome and support ANY method of addiction recovery that works for people. And "quad A" works for some people who for whatever reason have difficulty with AA. So I applaud and support them for that.

This is an important thing to remember, since most people see God as a supernatural being that is capable of performing miracles. He should not only be able to bring about cancer remissions, but also to restore lost limbs. Unfortunately, we only find miracles of the cancer remission sort, and those can be explained without reference to divine interventions.

I don't think you have an argument unless the theists view God as "supernatural". But I'm not here to win an argument. I'm interested in a God that works. I agree with you that when we choose to view God as "supernatural", we also make God UNnatural. And that unnatural vision of God, I believe, is not very accurate (and therefor not very functional). It's not that "God" can't do whatever God wants. It's that God has already done what God wanted, as expressed by and through the nature of existence. One thing that has always been difficult for we humans to learn is that God's benevolence is not aimed directly at us, as we so egocentrically often assume it should be. The divine benevolence we seek is being shown to all aspects of existence, not just me, or we , or mankind, or life.

This is the only possible way that I can see for a reasonable person to retain belief. It doesn't explain why God doesn't express his existence in terms of easily verifiable miracles, but belief would be impossible if we demanded it of God. A more reasonable inference, IMO, is that God only expresses his existence naturally because he doesn't really exist. So all of his interventions can be (indeed, have to be) accounted for without having to posit his existence.

You keep saying that, yet neither you, nor millions of medical doctors, nor millions of scientists can do so. And most of them will disagree with you. They will state outright that there are many aspects and examples of faith healing that they cannot explain away, as you seem so easily to be able to do in your own mind.

 

[rrosskopf]

Right, but have you yourself not chosen to be blind by ignoring all the scientific evidence which shows a world that functions perfectly without a deity?

Not at all. A well ordered self-sustaining world is hardly evidence of the absence of a creator. Quite the contrary. The question is not whether the world can continue without the direct interference of its creator, but whether its creator has ever interfered in human history. I believe the answer is a resounding yes! I know without a doubt that he has played a part in my life.

 

[rrosskopf]

No, I wouldn't accept any of those things as reasonable evidence that God exists, but that's not the important question. The important question is why you accept such arguments as evidence. You won't accept the sworn testimony of a Hindu that Vishnu exists. There are faith healings in all religions, not just yours. And even if there are more intelligent beings than us, that does not make the case that God must exist. By your own logic, there would have to be a more intelligent being than God, so the argument eats its own tail.

So the question remains: why do you find those things to be evidence?

If someone is skeptical enough, no amount of evidence will persuade them. Why wouldn't I accept the sworn testimony of a Hindu that Vishnu exists? If he has seen some being that refers to itself as Vishnu, who am I to call him a liar? I would be very interested to know what knowledge said being imparted to him. I am not threatened by the spiritual experiences of others. I know there are faith healings in different religions; I was once healed of a minor complaint instantly by a practicioner of Chinese Kung Fu. I wouldn't have believed it if I hadn't seen it for myself. I have also been healed of a terminal disease after a blessing by a modern day apostle. There are indeed things in this world that defy easy explanation.
As far as my reference to the possibility of more intelligent beings, no one seems to have understood my logic. Everyone is expecting some master of the Universe God who exists outside of time and space, and controls all things. That doesn't describe the God I worship. He is much like ourselves, only smarter and immortal. He creates and populates planets for his own joy, using his knowledge of physical and spiritual laws. He can't be everywhere at once, anymore than you or I can. That is why he delegates. He can't create worlds in an instant out of nothing; he requires time and material. I can't conceive of the other kind of God. He seems like the fantasy of children or philosophers.

 

[Diederick]

Not at all. A well ordered self-sustaining world is hardly evidence of the absence of a creator.

A negative cannot be proven, you know this just as well as I do.

Quite the contrary. The question is not whether the world can continue without the direct interference of its creator, but whether its creator has ever interfered in human history. I believe the answer is a resounding yes! I know without a doubt that he has played a part in my life.

You "KNOW" that God exists? Tell me why. What miracles happened to you that made you, not just believe, but KNOW God is out there?

And again, why the denomination? Why not just be agnostic?

Hmm, that would make a good thread, wouldn't it? Link will be here.
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/89778-denomination-why.html#post1797660

 

[rrosskopf]

You "KNOW" that God exists? Tell me why. What miracles happened to you that made you, not just believe, but KNOW God is out there?

The human body is like a radio. When it is properly tuned, it becomes sensitive to spiritual things. With practice, a person can talk to God, and receive answers to their prayers through the Holy Spirit. Most people don't listen for a response when they pray. If they do, they don't know what to listen for. The only people who can teach you how to have an effective prayer, are those who have had effective prayers. Such people are hard to find outside of the LDS church. Inside the LDS church it is practically a requirement for membership. Everyone is expected to receive revelation from God in the exercise of their callings, and every active adult member is given a calling.
It all started with Joseph Smith, who had one of the most productive prayers of all time. While praying in the woods near his farm, he was visited by two beings, who were brighter than the sun, and who stood over him. One of them introduced the other as his son, at which point the son commanded Joseph not to join any of the churches. He was told that all of the churches were corrupt.
Eventually, Joseph Smith was given power and authority to restore the ancient Christian church to the earth. Everything was restored through angelic visitation and heavenly revelation. A new book of scripture was also brought to light.

Through the teachings of Joseph Smith and others, I have learned to be intune to the Holy Spirit. It has taught me many things. I have come to rely on it. I have also seen many miracles, and have healed people with the authority of my priesthood. It is everything that I was told it would be.

 

[Diederick]

The human body is like a radio.

I'm going to try to take this as seriously as I can.

When it is properly tuned, it becomes sensitive to spiritual things. With practice, a person can talk to God, and receive answers to their prayers through the Holy Spirit.

Define "spiritual things". Anyone can talk to 'God'. Prayer doesn't work, unless you can prove those "answers" aren't mundane coincidences.

Most people don't listen for a response when they pray. If they do, they don't know what to listen for.

Are you suggesting God actually talks? As in, replying?

The only people who can teach you how to have an effective prayer, are those who have had effective prayers. Such people are hard to find outside of the LDS church.

I smell evangelicalsm...

Inside the LDS church... ...bla bla bla... ...It all started with Joseph Smith... ...productive prayers of all time... ...churches... ...bla bla bla... ...corrupt... ...new book of scripture was also brought to light.

Ah, I smelled right...

You are not going to convert me, or anyone else here, you know. So you might as well cut the *beep* and get to the point.

Through the teachings of Joseph Smith and others, I have learned to be intune to the Holy Spirit. It has taught me many things. I have come to rely on it. I have also seen many miracles, and have healed people with the authority of my priesthood. It is everything that I was told it would be.

I'll say it again: stop the religious stuff, I don't care. Tell me about how YOU KNOW GOD EXISTS. Those miracles would be swell, or those 'faith-healings', or even prayers coming true. But don't forget to sex it up a little, don't sell me the cheap stuff.

Give me just a little evidence, please.

Did you know you can say "poop" here? I wanted to use "****" instead of "stuff" right up there, and turning it into "poop" sounds a little odd. Like: "...the cheap poop." I'm so glad I can say "poop" without it turning to ****. While I think it's a much dirtier word than ****.

 

[Ardipithecus]

There are several threads on which people have been arguing about the "evidence" or lack thereof of the existence of "God". These threads were not started with this subject in mind, so I'm starting a new thread to keep them from being sidetracked.

Keep in mind that evidence is not proof. For example, the fact that Bob could have left work unnoticed and killed his wife, and then returned to work, resulting in his fellow workers claiming that he was on the job all day is not proof that Bob killed his wife. It is evidence, however, in that it provides a reasonable possibility.

Also, let's keep this a polite and civil discussion/debate. Your posts will be ignored, otherwise.

I will begin the discussion with a few posts from these other threads:


Sure ...

1. The idea of God works for most people most of the time. Ideas that work for us on a regular basis tend to be taken as accurate.

2. The ordered nature of existence forces us to consider the reality of a "God". Existence is not random. How do we explain this? What is responsible for the order? And why? The answers to these questions are a mystery, and we have named this mystery "God".

3. Energy can express itself as consciousness (take ourselves as an example), again, forcing us to consider that a consciousness could in turn express itself as energy (in much the same way as matter and energy are interchangeable). If so, all of existence could well be the "mind of God, expressed", just as the ancients claimed.

God is the gap in our knowledge. We creatively give our gods a personality, a gender, psychology, and human emotional frailties such as vindictiveness, cruelty, and genocide.

Gods have been strongest when factual knowledge (science) was weakest. As science has advance despite oppression of the Church, the gaps keep disappearing. Now we have reached the point where the only remaining gap is the nature of the Big Bang of the birth of the universe. However, since Stephen Hawking has traced existence back to the singularity, the God Gap has shrunk to a pea.

However, other cosmologists like Greene, Weinberg, and Kaku, are finding evidence of the Cosmos in the Pre-Bang period. The Hadron Machine at CERN may find the elusive Higgs Boson and take us back to before the Big Bang. Then God might join the many other discarded gods in the junk yard of ex-Gods.

Ardi

 

[rrosskopf]

Define "spiritual things". Anyone can talk to 'God'. Prayer doesn't work, unless you can prove those "answers" aren't mundane coincidences.
Are you suggesting God actually talks? As in, replying?
I'll say it again: stop the religious stuff, I don't care. Tell me about how YOU KNOW GOD EXISTS.
Give me just a little evidence, please.

"Spiritual things" refers to supernatural experiences or experiences with the supernatural world.
Although anyone can talk "to" God, few people actually know how to talk "with" God. Yes, he can and does reply. That is how I know God exists. He has taught me many things, from the meaning of obscure scriptures, to personal things about other people. He has taught me about future events, and also how to have more joy in my life. The evidence of his teaching is the change in my lifestyle, and the fulness of my joy. What were you expecting? A magic rock? A photograph of me with God? A personal appearance just to assuage your curiousity?
Yes, I've seen my share of miracles. I was diagnosed with Cardio Myopathy, a gradual enlargement and weakening of the heart. It is always fatal, usually resulting in death within six years. After receiving a priesthood blessing from a modern day apostle, I went to a new doctor and asked for a "second" opinion. In truth, all of my symtoms had dissappeared, and I suspected that I no longer had Cardio Myopathy. The doctor looked at me like I was deluded (just for questioning my diagnosis), but allowed me to take all of the tests again. They were all negative. There was no sign at all of Cardio Myopathy or the original symptoms. They were astonished, but no more so than my original doctor, when he found out. He insisted that I take all the tests a third time. This was about three years after the initial diagnosis... I did, and they still showed a clean bill of health.
Miracles like this are nice, but the real miracles, the kind that change lives, are those that involve a glimpse of the spiritual or supernatural world. It is an amazing experience, for example, to feel completely clean of sin; to feel completely forgiven of past transgressions. It is also an amazing experience to feel the presence of the Holy Ghost. The feelings of profound peace are hard to adequately describe. It is life changing experience to enter a real Temple of God, and feel the presence of God wash over you as you walk through a door. It is a life-changing experience when the Holy Ghost testifies to you that God loves you. It is a life changing experience when you are made privy to some future event, and are left to watch the prophecy unfold. I don't know how God knows the future, but he does. I have first-hand experience in all of these things. Words are hardly adequate to describe the things that I have seen and felt. For all intents and purposes, you and I live in very different worlds. The world you live in is just a shadow of the world I live in; I know because I use to live in your world.

 

[Diederick]

"Spiritual things" refers to supernatural experiences or experiences with the supernatural world.

Could you be less vague?

Although anyone can talk "to" God, few people actually know how to talk "with" God. Yes, he can and does reply. That is how I know God exists. He has taught me many things, from the meaning of obscure scriptures, to personal things about other people. He has taught me about future events, and also how to have more joy in my life. The evidence of his teaching is the change in my lifestyle, and the fulness of my joy. What were you expecting? A magic rock? A photograph of me with God? A personal appearance just to assuage your curiousity?

How does he communicate? And don't say "through the heart", because that's rubbish. Say something that makes sense, at least on its own.

Yes, I've seen my share of miracles. I was diagnosed with Cardio Myopathy, a gradual enlargement and weakening of the heart.

I've never heard cardiomyopathy enlarges the heart, so thanks for letting me dig into that. It's a muscle disease of the heart muscle and is very hard to diagnose since it shows symptoms that could belong to various other heart diseases. And it really doesn't kill that often, unless you are one of the few with the most severe symptoms.
The Cardiomyopathy Association | Cardiomyopathy
You could have got a heart-transplantation.

It is always fatal, usually resulting in death within six years. After receiving a priesthood blessing from a modern day apostle, I went to a new doctor and asked for a "second" opinion. In truth, all of my symtoms had dissappeared, and I suspected that I no longer had Cardio Myopathy. The doctor looked at me like I was deluded (just for questioning my diagnosis), but allowed me to take all of the tests again. They were all negative. There was no sign at all of Cardio Myopathy or the original symptoms. They were astonished, but no more so than my original doctor, when he found out. He insisted that I take all the tests a third time. This was about three years after the initial diagnosis... I did, and they still showed a clean bill of health.

Does the doctor still have the echocardiogram, or any other test results, he used for diagnosing you? Or did he diagnose you without physical inspection (a.k.a. he just talked to you)?

Miracles like this are nice, but the real miracles, the kind that change lives, are those that involve a glimpse of the spiritual or supernatural world. It is an amazing experience, for example, to feel completely clean of sin; to feel completely forgiven of past transgressions. It is also an amazing experience to feel the presence of the Holy Ghost. The feelings of profound peace are hard to adequately describe. It is life changing experience to enter a real Temple of God, and feel the presence of God wash over you as you walk through a door. It is a life-changing experience when the Holy Ghost testifies to you that God loves you.

Placebo, wishful thinking.

It is a life changing experience when you are made privy to some future event, and are left to watch the prophecy unfold. I don't know how God knows the future, but he does. I have first-hand experience in all of these things. Words are hardly adequate to describe the things that I have seen and felt.

Please do describe them, or just a few of them.

For all intents and purposes, you and I live in very different worlds. The world you live in is just a shadow of the world I live in; I know because I use to live in your world.

Oh, no, you've got that all wrong. You and I are living in the same world. You just add a completely different world to your mind, where none of the rules of logic apply.

 

[PureX]

God is the gap in our knowledge. We creatively give our gods a personality, a gender, psychology, and human emotional frailties such as vindictiveness, cruelty, and genocide.

"God" is a lot more than just a representation of our own unknowing. "God" is a lot of different things to different people, depending on their needs. For some, "God" is an imagined friend. For some, "God" is an idealized goal. For some, "God" is the embodiment of justice or vengeance. And for many, "God" represents love, and hope, and it's ability to heal us.

And depending on which of these views of "God" a person holds, and the course of action they follow as a result, "God" can do a lot to change people for the better or worse.

Gods have been strongest when factual knowledge (science) was weakest.

Human superstition has been strongest with natural ignorance, but you shouldn't confuse this with the concept of "God". Most religions welcome science, and view it as a way of understanding how God created the world, and how that creation works, today.

As science has advance despite oppression of the Church, the gaps keep disappearing. Now we have reached the point where the only remaining gap is the nature of the Big Bang of the birth of the universe. However, since Stephen Hawking has traced existence back to the singularity, the God Gap has shrunk to a pea.

Your view of science and of religion is far too narrow to back up your conclusions. The "god of the gaps" is only one insignificant argument made in favor of the existence of God.

However, other cosmologists like Greene, Weinberg, and Kaku, are finding evidence of the Cosmos in the Pre-Bang period. The Hadron Machine at CERN may find the elusive Higgs Boson and take us back to before the Big Bang. Then God might join the many other discarded gods in the junk yard of ex-Gods.

Ardi[/QUOTE]That will never happen. You're WAY over-estimating the power of scientific method. Human beings have walked the Earth for hundreds of thousands of years, and we find evidence of their god-belief going back nearly as far as we've been here. Science is not going to wipe the idea of God out of human consciousness. It's not even going to try.