Let's Present Some Evidence ...

[Vile Atheist]

It seems here that this discussion is still raging on due to misunderstanding by what PureX means by "God". Just a personal observation.

 

[nonbeliever_92]

Yes, CM, true. Although I'm still not convinced that PureX knows the difference between objective and subjective "things."

 

[rrosskopf]

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.

Really? Which rules of logic don't apply?

 

[rrosskopf]

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.
You could have got a heart-transplantation.
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)?

My doctor told me that there was no cure, and that it was always fatal. Perhaps it depends on the type of Cardio Myopathy. I can only tell you what I remember about what he told me. It seems like doctors speak a language that only other doctors can understand. As the heart muscle enlarges, it just gets weaker and weaker and finally just stops pumping. Their shock at my recovery was real. I believe a heart transplant was a possibility... although people rarely live long after a heart transplant. I'm sure all three sets of echocardiograms, Holters, bloodwork and stress tests are still in my medical files. Both doctors were cardiologists.
By some amazing coincidence, the apostle who gave me the blessing is also a cardiologist; a heart surgeon to be exact. He even performed surgery on one of the past presidents of our church. I believe it was President Spencer W. Kimball who pointed at him in General Conference and said "That man has touched my heart very deeply..." Yes, he was a prophet with a sense of humor.

 

[PureX]

It seems here that this discussion is still raging on due to misunderstanding by what PureX means by "God". Just a personal observation.

One problem is that I mean different things relative to different conditions and questions. I realize this is frustrating to some other folks, but that's the nature of "God" as I understand it. "God" is not a static object. It's a dynamic ideal that we need to interact with in order to ascertain it's relevancy. It's why this is always such a tough subject to discuss.

 

[Copernicus]

It seems here that this discussion is still raging on due to misunderstanding by what PureX means by "God". Just a personal observation.

I don't quite agree. I think that we all understand the various things that Purex has said about God, but he has not been entirely consistent. He wants to apply his concept of God to the various religious doctrines that we know as "Christianity", and there just isn't a bona fide match there. The Christian God is minimally an intelligent causal agent in our physical reality, but I don't that Purex agrees with that view consistently. In the OP, he referred to the God that "works for most people most of the time", not necessarily his own personal ideal of "God".

 

[PureX]

There are a lot of Christians who hold a far more "liberal" and even abstract view of God than those who tend to get a lot of media play, or those who run the stodgy institutions of religion. Yet each one of them would maintain that their view of God "works for them". This is the nature of "God": that it is an ideal made up of a whole multiplex of ideas around a few binding themes, and it is an ideal that must be interacted with to be understood and appreciated. The end result is that God is different for each of us, yet "works" for each of those who choose to interact with it. I realize this makes for a very difficult "foe" for atheists to argue against, but it is what it is. And the reason I stress the fact that God is an idea that works is because it is obvious to me that this is the criteria that we hold ALL our ideas of reality to; both subjective and objective. And in this way we can avoid the over-simplification of "seeing is believing".

 

[Copernicus]

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?

Having been raised as a Christian, I am quite familiar with the many uses that prayers have, and I stand by my interpretation of what prayer is usually used for.

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

Servile behavior has a purpose. We do not behave that way to just anyone. It is considered a natural method of currying favor with people of higher social status.

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.

The question that you are missing is why you want them to know that they are appreciated. Love is not a one-way street, despite the seldom-realized ideal of unconditional love. When we talk about "unrequited love", we are talking about an unreciprocated need.

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.

Not at all. I am making an objective observation about the nature of gift-giving. You do not necessarily expect a reciprocal gift, but you do expect a reciprocation of some kind. If someone just takes your gift and doesn't even bother to acknowledge your act, then you become offended. That is because you don't get what you were expecting in return--the social bond that you placed on the recipient. When people express appreciation towards God, it is not an entirely selfless act from an objective standpoint. God is expected to want and appreciate the praise.

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.

My point was that God only grants prayers whose outcome could happen even if he didn't exist. He cures cancer through remissions, but he never restores amputated limbs. Yet there is no reason why this ought to be the case, if he really does exist. Indeed, those kinds of extraordinary miracles only seem to take place in scripture or in religious rumor mills.

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 am reminded of the scene in the Wizard of Oz where the heroes all turned out to already possess the very qualities they were petitioning the wizard for.

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...

But atheists need to find the strength to overcome alcoholism, too. For them, appeals to God are useless. For your approach to work, they cannot deal with their alcoholism unless they first convert, which is a non-starter for most of us.

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.

Me, too. And I applaud you for your daily accomplishment.

...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....

If God's benevolence is responsible for all the good stuff that happens, then who is responsible for the bad stuff? Satan? I see no benevolent agents out there other than human beings and those animals that get along with us very dangerous humans.

...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.

I just disagree with you on this. I think that the majority of doctors see an enhanced immune system as a product of attitude, whether brought on by religion or something else. Positive thinking works. If there were truly miraculous examples of faith healing, then you would see limbs grow back. That kind of faith healing never happens.

 

[PureX]

Servile behavior has a purpose. We do not behave that way to just anyone. It is considered a natural method of currying favor with people of higher social status.

If you were a Christian, then surely you are aware that to place yourself in the service of your brother is not an action intended to curry his favor, but to follow divine will. It's through humility and love of one another that the kingdom comes about here on Earth. Yes, there is a reward for the behavior, but the reward is for everyone.

I am making an objective observation about the nature of gift-giving. You do not necessarily expect a reciprocal gift, but you do expect a reciprocation of some kind. If someone just takes your gift and doesn't even bother to acknowledge your act, then you become offended. That is because you don't get what you were expecting in return--the social bond that you placed on the recipient. When people express appreciation towards God, it is not an entirely selfless act from an objective standpoint. God is expected to want and appreciate the praise.

Well all I can tell you is that my appreciation for God is expressed for my own sake, not God's. I need to express gratitude to remain healthy. I don't expect that God needs or wants my gratitude. All I know is that I need to keep developing it and sharing it.

My point was that God only grants prayers whose outcome could happen even if he didn't exist. He cures cancer through remissions, but he never restores amputated limbs. Yet there is no reason why this ought to be the case, if he really does exist. Indeed, those kinds of extraordinary miracles only seem to take place in scripture or in religious rumor mills.

So God only heals us using natural methods and means. Why would we expect otherwise? After all, nature is the physical expression of God's will. For God to then turn around and defy natural law would be to countermand his own will and intent. Why would we expect God to behave like that? It would be illogical.

I am reminded of the scene in the Wizard of Oz where the heroes all turned out to already possess the very qualities they were petitioning the wizard for.

Sometimes they do, and sometimes they don't. What would you tell those who don't find the strength and courage they need to keep living inside themselves? "Sorry Pal, there is no God, and no miracles for you."

But atheists need to find the strength to overcome alcoholism, too. For them, appeals to God are useless. For your approach to work, they cannot deal with their alcoholism unless they first convert, which is a non-starter for most of us.

The recovery program that I used required me to surrender to the fact and realization that I did not have within me the strength to stop drinking, and that my life would forever be a disaster as a result. It also required me to accept and surrender to a "power greater than myself" that could stop me from drinking, if I'd simply stop running my own life and let this "higher power" run my life instead. And since I knew I was screwed, and my situation was hopeless, I surrendered.

The process wasn't about me "converting" to any gods or religion. It was about my giving up control of my own thoughts and actions, because my addiction had made me unable to run my own life successfully. I was not capable of making sane, healthy decisions, anymore. So I had to stop making any decisions, and let something or someone else do it for me. And since the other people in AA were able to stay sober for a week, or a month, or a year, and I clearly could not, I viewed them as a "power grater than myself" and surrendered myself over to them. I wanted what they had (sobriety) so I was willing to let go of my own attempts at controlling myself and do whatever they told me to so. This is exactly the same way many other atheists approached AA. Their "higher power" was that otherwise unattainable goal. It was the wisdom and courage and will power that they did not possess. It was the hope that they didn't have, that they could ever be a happy, healthy, and sober people, again.

All AA did was substitute the term "Higher Power" for "God of your choosing". And who cares about the words, anyway? The point is that the process works. For some people it worked immediately, like magic. For others, it needed persistent hard work and a specific behavioral process to follow. But the point is that it works, even for atheists. And this is the evidence of "God's reality" to me.

If God's benevolence is responsible for all the good stuff that happens, then who is responsible for the bad stuff? Satan?

To tell the truth, most of the time we are responsible for it. Yes, we will become ill and die. That's just part of life. But much of the suffering we experience in our lives is due to the poor choices and behaviors of ourselves and other people. We could change this if we really wanted to.

 

[mixond]

There can NEVER be any evidence or proof of GOD. Let's face it, God is a man made concept that can never be proven or disproved.

 

[Storm]

There can NEVER be any evidence or proof of GOD.

Maybe, maybe not. Well, assuming you're speaking of objective evidence. I have quite compelling subjective evidence.

Let's face it, God is a man made concept that can never be proven or disproved.

I agree it can't (currently) be proven or disproved, but does that not negate your assertion that it's "a man made concept" in and of itself?

Regardless of your self contradiction, current research reveals that the truth is more complex than a comforting fairy tale. Spandrels, trance states, and who knows how many unimagined elements all contributed to the evolution of religion.

 

[PureX]

There can NEVER be any evidence or proof of GOD. Let's face it, God is a man made concept that can never be proven or disproved.

It's good that we have you here, to define God and the nature of human thought for us, as we would never be able to determine these things for ourselves. *smile*

 

[Commoner]

154 pages and still no evidence for the undefined "existence" of the undefined "god". :run:

 

[nonbeliever_92]

Yeah, PureX why don't you define this "god" you believe in in simple terms.

 

[Beaudreaux]

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.

Well NOW we're getting somewhere! If God has interfered in human history, then that means He has physically acted to change the natural progression of events. This is important to this kind of discussion, because now we may start to understand God by way of his actions on earth and by way of the times He chose NOT to act on earth.

So, let's start with the things you believe he did. Can you provide some instances?

 

[Beaudreaux]

If someone is skeptical enough, no amount of evidence will persuade them.

That's ridiculous! There are many, many, many, many, many instances of skeptics being convinced by evidence. MANY were skeptical of round earth theories in 1491. The evidence convinced them. MANY were skeptical that an automobile would be more effective for the average person than a horse. The evidence has convinced them. Skeptics are won over by evidence every day.

It absolutely floors me that this thread even exists. That people would take an assertion that not only has no evidence, but by its very nature can never have evidence and then have the cojones to say that we are SOOOOO skeptical that we refuse to believe the MOUNTAINS of evidence they present. What a joke!

 

[nonbeliever_92]

That's ridiculous! There are many, many, many, many, many instances of skeptics being convinced by evidence. MANY were skeptical of round earth theories in 1491. The evidence convinced them. MANY were skeptical that an automobile would be more effective for the average person than a horse. The evidence has convinced them. Skeptics are won over by evidence every day.

It absolutely floors me that this thread even exists. That people would take an assertion that not only has no evidence, but by its very nature can never have evidence and then have the cojones to say that we are SOOOOO skeptical that we refuse to believe the MOUNTAINS of evidence they present. What a joke!

Actually, I disagree, there are some people who are just too skeptical to the point that they are no longer skeptical but simply closed-minded. Many conspiracy theorists for one, many non-supporters of evolution...

 

[PureX]

Yeah, PureX why don't you define this "god" you believe in in simple terms.

Because it's not a simple ideal.

 

[PureX]

There can NEVER be any evidence or proof of GOD. Let's face it, God is a man made concept that can never be proven or disproved.

All concepts are man-made and can never be absolutely proven or disproved.

 

[Commoner]

Because it's not a simple ideal.

Do you even know what you believe in?