Why not believe in God?

[Æsahættr]

God is love, so where love is present, that is proof of God.

Well first, to prove that the presence of love is proof of God, you would have to prove that there can be no source of love other than God. That would amount to showing that it is impossible for love to arise simply from humans without God. (I suggest you research the psychology of love before attempting to show that)

Where love is not shown forth, God is not shown forth. Doesn't mean that God doesn't exist, just that, by our lack of showing love, we "close the blinds," so to speak.

If you are claiming that God's existance can be shown from the love here on Earth, then you really need to explain how a false result for that can be shown. An experiment where it is impossible to get a negative result cannot possibly considered valid.

 

[sojourner]

Well first, to prove that the presence of love is proof of God, you would have to prove that there can be no source of love other than God. That would amount to showing that it is impossible for love to arise simply from humans without God. (I suggest you research the psychology of love before attempting to show that)




If you are claiming that God's existance can be shown from the love here on Earth, then you really need to explain how a false result for that can be shown. An experiment where it is impossible to get a negative result cannot possibly considered valid.

Well...I misspoke. The word "proof" puts a whole different spin on things. The presence of love does not "prove" God's existence, but it does reveal God's existence, for God is love. Therefore, wherever there is love, there is God.

This isn't a proof, therefore, there is no experiment. The "rules" of revelation do not fololow the "rules" of proof. Those who believe in God find evidence for God where love is shown. Those who do not believe in God, find nothing further than human emotion.

If there is any "proof" (and I've use quotations here), it lies in the consistency between the assertion that "God is love" and the willingness of God's people to live their lives out of a standpoint of loving and allowing themselves to be loved.

 

[Æsahættr]

Well...I misspoke. The word "proof" puts a whole different spin on things. The presence of love does not "prove" God's existence, but it does reveal God's existence, for God is love. Therefore, wherever there is love, there is God.

This isn't a proof, therefore, there is no experiment. The "rules" of revelation do not fololow the "rules" of proof. Those who believe in God find evidence for God where love is shown. Those who do not believe in God, find nothing further than human emotion.

If there is any "proof" (and I've use quotations here), it lies in the consistency between the assertion that "God is love" and the willingness of God's people to live their lives out of a standpoint of loving and allowing themselves to be loved.

If God exists, and if His existance affects us in any way at all, then it must be possible to obtain evidence of His existance. That evidence will exist regardless of belief.
Think of it this way, suppose we say that love, or feelings in general, are the only way in which God affects us (simplifying it-if He interacts in other ways then my argument is even stronger). Now, suppose that the affects of God were fundamentally indistuingishable from other explanations of emotion that do not use God. In that case, then again, God's existance would be irrelevent. As I showed earlier, if it is fundamentally impossible to do an experiment that shows a different result if something exists than if it doesn't, then the existance of that thing is irrelevent.
The alternative is that God's affect on our emotion is not fundamentally indistinguishable from other explanations. In that case, then we should be looking for faults in the psychological theories explaining emotion. If we find the psychological explanations to be completly flawed in some manner, then that is objective evidence for God's existance.

 

[sojourner]

If God exists, and if His existance affects us in any way at all, then it must be possible to obtain evidence of His existance. That evidence will exist regardless of belief.
Think of it this way, suppose we say that love, or feelings in general, are the only way in which God affects us (simplifying it-if He interacts in other ways then my argument is even stronger). Now, suppose that the affects of God were fundamentally indistuingishable from other explanations of emotion that do not use God. In that case, then again, God's existance would be irrelevent. As I showed earlier, if it is fundamentally impossible to do an experiment that shows a different result if something exists than if it doesn't, then the existance of that thing is irrelevent.
The alternative is that God's affect on our emotion is not fundamentally indistinguishable from other explanations. In that case, then we should be looking for faults in the psychological theories explaining emotion. If we find the psychological explanations to be completly flawed in some manner, then that is objective evidence for God's existance.

God is only irrelevent in the mind of those who don't believe. It's all in how you choose to perceive the divine. God is ineffable and largely acts through the human agency. If there is is an irrefutable proof, it's likely to come through humanity.

 

[Opethian]

Well...I misspoke. The word "proof" puts a whole different spin on things. The presence of love does not "prove" God's existence, but it does reveal God's existence, for God is love. Therefore, wherever there is love, there is God.

Since you believe god is love, if biochemists could unravel the biochemical pathway of the chemicals and their interactions that cause the feeling love to be perceived in our brain's consciousness abstraction, would you still believe in god?

 

[Opethian]

God is only irrelevent in the mind of those who don't believe.

The same goes for the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

It's all in how you choose to perceive the divine.

You mean how you convince yourself he exists and make yourself feel his so-called presence and connection with you. It's all in the mind, and the mind is the central command of your body. Do you really think you aren't making yourself release chemicals in your body that stimulate a feeling that you then interpret as the presence of god? It's been proven that people can succeed at deceiving themselves without even knowing it.

God is ineffable and largely acts through the human agency. If there is is an irrefutable proof, it's likely to come through humanity.

There is no irrefutable proof. In fact, there is no proof at all. Only proof of humans fooling themselves.

 

[Krie]

b/c all he does is bring us hope when you need it. otherwise he is juat someone to fear

 

[Æsahættr]

God is only irrelevent in the mind of those who don't believe. It's all in how you choose to perceive the divine. God is ineffable and largely acts through the human agency. If there is is an irrefutable proof, it's likely to come through humanity.

I'm not saying that there has to be an irrefutable proof if God exists that He does exist, but I am saying that there has to be objective evidence. If that comes through humanity, then that's no problem, but there has to be evidence that is not reliant on a prior faith position, ie. objective evidence. That doesn't mean that it doesn't exist if we don't find it, but if we are increasingly able to explain better and better human behaviour without objective evidence of God, then it makes it less and less likely that He exists.
As for irrelevence, I am not talking in subjective terms here. When I say irrelevent, I mena purely irrelevent. For God to be genuinelly irrelevent would mean that He could not interact with humans in any way. If you believe that God can interact with humans, that means that objective evidence (not necessarily proof) must be possible to obtain.

 

[sojourner]

Since you believe god is love, if biochemists could unravel the biochemical pathway of the chemicals and their interactions that cause the feeling love to be perceived in our brain's consciousness abstraction, would you still believe in god?

Absolutely, because the perception and effects of love far exceed the chemistry involved, just as creative power far exceeds the brain chemistry involved in the creative process. A lover could be reduced to the various biological and biochemical compounds and processes that make up the human body and human responses. But, that would reduce the personhood of the lover. We are biological machines, but we are not just biological machines. Nor is God just a physical equation. There is something more that serves to make us each unique, that serves to connect us to one another, that goes beyond the scientific explanation -- that makes us each a person. That ineffable quality is what we call "person," "spirit," "God."

 

[Opethian]

As for irrelevence, I am not talking in subjective terms here. When I say irrelevent, I mena purely irrelevent. For God to be genuinelly irrelevent would mean that He could not interact with humans in any way. If you believe that God can interact with humans, that means that objective evidence (not necessarily proof) must be possible to obtain.

Yes, I would be really interested in asking believers to "make a connection with god", at a time where their brains are being scanned for specific activity and the levels of certain hormones in their body are being tested. I think the results could be very interesting.

If a change in brain activity and a specific hormone that makes us feel good is perceived, that would basically falsify the connection with god, since that connection is supposed to exist through "the soul", and should not be perceivable with physical machinery.

 

[Opethian]

Absolutely, because the perception and effects of love far exceed the chemistry involved, just as creative power far exceeds the brain chemistry involved in the creative process.

Do you have any evidence to support this statement? I'm positively 100% sure that not a single process at all going on in our body exceeds the biochemistry and physics involved. And there is not a single piece of evidence to suggest otherwise.

A lover could be reduced to the various biological and biochemical compounds and processes that make up the human body and human responses. But, that would reduce the personhood of the lover.

No it wouldn't, because all a person is made of is his body.

We are biological machines, but we are not just biological machines.

I'm sorry to say we are, and there is no evidence to suggest otherwise. It's very hard to accept, but not everything has to be easy and "heavenly".

Nor is God just a physical equation. There is something more that serves to make us each unique, that serves to connect us to one another, that goes beyond the scientific explanation -- that makes us each a person.

No, and like I said, no evidence to support that statement. A person is a body, nothing more.

That ineffable quality is what we call "person," "spirit," "God."

I'm very sorry to say that you're wrong. It's fun to believe that you're right, and it makes the world seem much more romantic, but I don't think you're being honest to yourself.

 

[Æsahættr]

Yes, I would be really interested in asking believers to "make a connection with god", at a time where their brains are being scanned for specific activity and the levels of certain hormones in their body are being tested. I think the results could be very interesting.

If a change in brain activity and a specific hormone that makes us feel good is perceived, that would basically falsify the connection with god, since that connection is supposed to exist through "the soul", and should not be perceivable with physical machinery.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2003/godonbraintrans.shtml

 

[sojourner]

The same goes for the Flying Spaghetti Monster.



You mean how you convince yourself he exists and make yourself feel his so-called presence and connection with you. It's all in the mind, and the mind is the central command of your body. Do you really think you aren't making yourself release chemicals in your body that stimulate a feeling that you then interpret as the presence of god? It's been proven that people can succeed at deceiving themselves without even knowing it.



There is no irrefutable proof. In fact, there is no proof at all. Only proof of humans fooling themselves.

if that's how you choose to identify the divine...

I don't have a need to "convince myself." I have been convinced outside of a personal need for "evidence." It's in the mind in the sense that the mind is the processing center for how we perceive things. But it's in the psyche, too...and in the body. The presence of God is always here -- it doesn't come and go like some fairy-godmother. If I sense the presence of God more strongly at times, it's precisely because my physical state and mental state are working in tandem to open me to that perception.

There is no irrefutable proof. But then...God doesn't have to prove God's self to us...

 

[Æsahættr]

Absolutely, because the perception and effects of love far exceed the chemistry involved, just as creative power far exceeds the brain chemistry involved in the creative process. A lover could be reduced to the various biological and biochemical compounds and processes that make up the human body and human responses. But, that would reduce the personhood of the lover. We are biological machines, but we are not just biological machines.

Just because we can't appreciate the beauty of scientific explanations of things at first glance, it doesn't mean they aren't there. Ultimately, we could in potentia reduce all of existance to a set of equations. I don't think that necessarily reduces the beauty of existance. It makes it harder to find that beauty, but that doesn't mean it isn't worth the effort. Describing the human body on smaller and smaller levels only diminishes its beauty because we are used to dealing with things on the macro-level, but the more familiar you are with a certain level, the more you can appreciate beauty at that level.

 

[ΩRôghênΩ]

puny humans

 

[Opethian]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2003/godonbraintrans.shtml

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon...aintrans.shtmlhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2003/godonbraintrans.shtml

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2003/godonbraintrans.shtml

Very interesting! Sorry, I can't give you frubals atm, you make too many good posts!

if that's how you choose to identify the divine...

I don't have a need to "convince myself."

But maybe you really want there to be a god, and to be a soul and all those romantical aspects of life, and subconsciously you convinced yourself to believe in god for those reasons, while consciously you refuse to even think of this possibility as the basis of your faith? Just a hypothesis.

I have been convinced outside of a personal need for "evidence."

Yes, usually people don't need to see evidence for things they want to believe in, while they often won't even accept massive amounts of evidence for something they don't want to believe in (anti-evolutionists). So this would support my hypothesis.

It's in the mind in the sense that the mind is the processing center for how we perceive things. But it's in the psyche, too...and in the body.

The mind and the psyche are both part of the body. It's all in the body. And the subconsciousness is a very powerful thing.

The presence of God is always here -- it doesn't come and go like some fairy-godmother. If I sense the presence of God more strongly at times, it's precisely because my physical state and mental state are working in tandem to open me to that perception.

Yes, and your belief and way of thought triggers this presence. The presence is entirely physical though.

There is no irrefutable proof. But then...God doesn't have to prove God's self to us...

Then why do you feel his presence?

 

[sojourner]

I'm not saying that there has to be an irrefutable proof if God exists that He does exist, but I am saying that there has to be objective evidence. If that comes through humanity, then that's no problem, but there has to be evidence that is not reliant on a prior faith position, ie. objective evidence. That doesn't mean that it doesn't exist if we don't find it, but if we are increasingly able to explain better and better human behaviour without objective evidence of God, then it makes it less and less likely that He exists.
As for irrelevence, I am not talking in subjective terms here. When I say irrelevent, I mena purely irrelevent. For God to be genuinelly irrelevent would mean that He could not interact with humans in any way. If you believe that God can interact with humans, that means that objective evidence (not necessarily proof) must be possible to obtain.

Why does there have to be objective evidence? God doesn't owe us an explanation. To say that God does is the height of hubris.

We have made great strides in the science of human behavior, but we still don't understand the metphysical aspects. The greatest truths are immeasurable by scientific standards: Love, trust, faith, attraction, creativity, sensuality -- these human processes go largely unmeasured, yet we say that they exist. These are largely subjective perceptions. we can talk about them, because they are similar enough to the perceptions of others, that there exists a commonality. The same is true for our perception of the divine.

 

[sojourner]

Do you have any evidence to support this statement? I'm positively 100% sure that not a single process at all going on in our body exceeds the biochemistry and physics involved. And there is not a single piece of evidence to suggest otherwise.



No it wouldn't, because all a person is made of is his body.


I'm sorry to say we are, and there is no evidence to suggest otherwise. It's very hard to accept, but not everything has to be easy and "heavenly".



No, and like I said, no evidence to support that statement. A person is a body, nothing more.


I'm very sorry to say that you're wrong. It's fun to believe that you're right, and it makes the world seem much more romantic, but I don't think you're being honest to yourself.

Your signature says it all, and I believe that mind set limits you.

 

[sojourner]

Just because we can't appreciate the beauty of scientific explanations of things at first glance, it doesn't mean they aren't there. Ultimately, we could in potentia reduce all of existance to a set of equations. I don't think that necessarily reduces the beauty of existance. It makes it harder to find that beauty, but that doesn't mean it isn't worth the effort. Describing the human body on smaller and smaller levels only diminishes its beauty because we are used to dealing with things on the macro-level, but the more familiar you are with a certain level, the more you can appreciate beauty at that level.

I think you're wrong. I think that humanity could never be reduced to a scientific equation that would satisfy the scope of human experience. We each contain the breath of God that gives us something that goes beyond our capacity to measure.

 

[mr.guy]

Yes, I would be really interested in asking believers to "make a connection with god", at a time where their brains are being scanned for specific activity and the levels of certain hormones in their body are being tested. I think the results could be very interesting.

here

If a change in brain activity and a specific hormone that makes us feel good is perceived, that would basically falsify the connection with god, since that connection is supposed to exist through "the soul", and should not be perceivable with physical machinery.

here