Curt's Invitation - Prove God Exists!

[Ziggy Stardust]

My personal experience has confirmed, in my mind, the validity of other sources that claim to have a more direct link to God. Thus I am not only a theist but a specific kind. And part of that is that we have to come to our own beliefs; it is better to get all the truth, but coming to a conclusion that is only part of the truth beats blindly accepting anything.

Allright, fair enough.

I say that no one can be led to belief, yet I belong to a proselyting religion. How does that work? As a missionary, I never tried to convince anyone. We would explain how we came to believe what we did and invited others to try. And some people would come to the same conclusions we had, ased not on our but on their personal experiences.

I can't see any problem with this. As long as you treat those who arive to different conclusions with the same respect as you are granted. I believe this thread came to life because of those who don't.

edit:
or as Curt put it:

It seems many religious posters wish us to accept their beliefs without
a jot of evidence, but choose to shoot down Atheism without a glance.

 

[warpus]

You "worship" your own intellect by assuming it's flawless!

Actually, that couldn't be further from the truth.

Every good scientist leaves room open for the possibility that he/she is wrong. This is a very important staple of the scienfic method - If you have devised a theory - you invite other scientists to read it over and attempt to disprove it. This is called peer review.

If a theory can withstand the scrutiny of peer review, it becomes accepted until somebody can disprove it or find a flaw in it. If that happens the theory is discarded and possibly replaced with something better.

This is totally opposite to how a theist would approach religion. A theist assumes that he/she is right no matter what, and doesn't leave any room for scrutiny.

 

[Paradigne]

I can't even prove that you or I exist...

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

This is totally opposite to how a theist would approach religion. A theist assumes that he/she is right no matter what, and doesn't leave any room for scrutiny.

Not all theists. I certainly leave room for scrutiny and have adjusted my beliefs when I felt it was necessary.

 

[warpus]

Not all theists. I certainly leave room for scrutiny and have adjusted my beliefs when I felt it was necessary.

Ok, fair enough.

I should have said 'most theists'. I was generalizing because in most faiths you are told to believe the basic tenets of the faith without any sort of questioning allowed.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

All right. I just think that sometimes here we (by which I mean everyone, theists, atheists, what have you) make generalizations about what religion is or isn't. The problem, of course, is that there is no one thing that defines all religious people.

 

[CurtSibling]

Curt
That's what I said already - you are not looking for any proof - you're just mocking religon.
Otherwise you would read a simple provided online source which doesn't make you "convert".
If you're afraid of the consequencies of your reading - it's up to you.
The book is nothing more than just a piece of apple - peeled and prepared for you to bite.
If you refuse (being afraid of its taste) - then there's basically nothing to talk about.
You disappointed me VERY much.

You can't convince a person who denys what is said to him as unreliable.
Neither can you "chew down" any information for one who refuses to swallow it.

I really think I wasted my time on you - no offense.

EDIT:
In other words - I have to post the entire book here to provide you "proof" - it's not a single quote that's sufficient - it's the whole idea...

Then explain the idea to me in brief terms. Stop being lazy about it.
The amount of time you spend moaning could be used to type your answers!

If you have nothing useful to add to the debate, instead of inviting
me to convert, I am not going to waste any more time with you....

I gave you a chance...You responded with typical empty religious words.

.

 

[CurtSibling]

This is how I see it: neither I nor any human can prove the existence of God, only He can.

When I mentioned the spiritual experiences that led me to believe in God, I called them subjective. That doesn't mean that I don't take them seriously, just that they are useless for convincing other people. For some, belief in God comes naturally. For others, they must do the work to find out for themselves. Some won't try, and that is their prerogative. But if they are wrong and God does exist, then ultimately it is their responsibility for not coming to know Him.

And why does God "hide" Himself or make His existence so non-obvious? Because life is a test. It doesn't consist of one question, "does God exist?" If that were the case, and salvation dependent on theism, God would be very cruel to make it so hard for some to accept Him. Rather, the trick is to become greater than we are now. If it were obvious that God is, I think it would make it harder for some people to put forth the effort to know Him, and it is by effort that we grow.

God also knew that some people would be unable or unwilling to accept Him. Being merciful, He will not condemn the honest and sincere who cannot accept His existence, as long as they still strive to show love to other humans.

So that is why I see proof of God as, not unattainable, but not transferable, so to speak. I am quite sure (not 100%, but faith is the part where I act as though He is) but I can easily understand how others may not be. I could be an agnostic without denying my understanding of the universe.

Because as far as I can tell, the universe we have now could have come into being without a creator. In fact, as a Mormon I do believe that the universe was not created out of nothing but out of pre-existing materials. God was just the organizer. And I can conceive of many different attributes of God. As I said, I don't believe He is omnipotent (which would clearly contradict omnibenevolence) and many different views of God strike me as logically consistent. Including, admittedly, His nonexistence.

I cannot say I could ever make peace with your ideology, but you do have
some good solid reason in the mix there, and I can give you kudos on that.

Not much in the way of evidence, but at least your worldview is sensible.

.

 

[CurtSibling]

All right. I just think that sometimes here we (by which I mean everyone, theists, atheists, what have you) make generalizations about what religion is or isn't. The problem, of course, is that there is no one thing that defines all religious people.

The need to follow something that is tenebrous...
That is the aspect that unites them, in my humble view.

.

 

[CurtSibling]

I can't even prove that you or I exist...

The medium of the net is funny like that.

I guess some could compare it to their religious experience...But at the end
of the day, Bill Gates is a man you can see, and a face that is real...He does
not hide and require worship based on unobservable dormancy.

.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

I cannot say I could ever make peace with your ideology, but you do have some good solid reason in the mix there, and I can give you kudos on that.

Not much in the way of evidence, but at least your worldview is sensible.

Well, Curt, I suppose that is the closest we will ever come to seeing eye-to-eye, so thank you.

 

[CurtSibling]

My pleasure.

So, you see - Good things can come from my threads after all!

.

 

[Souron]

Proof God, the Almightly Grace does not exist.

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
--Epicurus​

(Not ment to be taken seriously, as any christian can explain how God values free will)

 

[GenMarshall]

Provide some evidence for we heathens, then we can call an end to this debate.

No matter how much I put to the table on my proof that God exists. Many hardliner atheists would still turn up their noses at the religious or God. For me God is a spirit and is infinitely perfict, however since God is everywhere we cannot see him because He is a pure spirit that thus cannot be seen with bodily eyes.

Neather I nor any other person can prove the existence of God, hense why we cannot see Him with our own bodily eyes. only God himself can prove himself. That is what I am starting to get a viewpoint on, especialy with the difficulty trying to explain why I believe in God to non-believers.

I usualy use spiritual experiances because that has lead me to the rediscovery of God through the Holy Spirit. Since the desire for God is written in my heart and thus is an emotional and spiritual experiance. It does not meen that I dont take it seriously, but I found that it is useless to convince other non-believers. People have an easyer time to believe in God and thus comes naturaly. Much like in my case after the fender bender accident I came to realise the value of life as well as a tug on my heart by the Holy Spirit after making that realization of the value of life. However for other people, they must work to find God themselves. Some people sucseed while others find that its too much for them and give up. However its their choice that they wont try or just give up. If they are wrong however and God does exist, it would be their responsibility for not coming to know the Lord. However, I am still searching for answers on the fate of atheists and agnostics if God does indeed exists and are being judged. However I do have hope that they would be given a choice of accepting Jesus and the Gospels at their judgement at the gates of Heaven. Why I have hope in that is because no one knows what happens in Heaven or who goes there.

Since God is a spirit and thus cannot be seen by our own eyes is because I believe that life is some sort of test and thus he "hides" himself to see that people become greater than they are now presently. Personaly, I feel that if God is proven to exist, it would be harder for people to make an effort to get to know God and thus hamper our spiritual growth. Since God is all-knowing, he knew that there would be people who would be unable or unwilling to accept Him. Since God is a merciful and a just God, I believe that God wont condemn honest and sincear people who cannot accept His existance so long as they make attempts to show love and kindness towards other people. I used to believe that all atheists, agnostics, and non-believers are automaticly condemed to Hell. But I have came to a bit of soul searching as well as some insparation from Eran (I guess Mormons can do that to Catholics ). This is how I came to stop being judgemental against atheists and agnostics. Not because I used to be an agnostic, but because Jesus himself told us not to judge others and worry about our own selves.

I am starting to get the viewpoint that the proof of God is as Eran puts it "not unattainable, but not transferable, so to speak." Much like I can tell you about how I emotionaly and spiritualy feel in regards to God. It would not be the same towards a non-believer because each person is different and have different ways to recive God. No matter how many times I tell you about God, the Gospels, as well as how accepting Jesus changed my life, I feel that it is up to the individual to actively search for God or not.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Well, thanks CivGeneral. Glad I was able to help.

 

[GenMarshall]

Well, thanks CivGeneral. Glad I was able to help.

Well, it became hard for me to explain to non-believers about the existance of God and thus came up with the conclusion I posted earlyer as well as insparation from you. I admit that if there was proof that God does exist, then there would be people who would become apethetic and not grow spiritualy and come to know God. Thus I feel that no human, wheather he be a Doctor of the Church in Roman Catholicism to a Protestant Jesus-lovin' Trucker can prove God exist because it is unique to each individual on how they interperate the existance of God.

 

[CurtSibling]

No matter how much I put to the table on my proof that God exists. Many hardliner atheists would still turn up their noses at the religious or God. For me God is a spirit and is infinitely perfict, however since God is everywhere we cannot see him because He is a pure spirit that thus cannot be seen with bodily eyes.

Neather I nor any other person can prove the existence of God, hense why we cannot see Him with our own bodily eyes. only God himself can prove himself. That is what I am starting to get a viewpoint on, especialy with the difficulty trying to explain why I believe in God to non-believers.

I usualy use spiritual experiances because that has lead me to the rediscovery of God through the Holy Spirit. Since the desire for God is written in my heart and thus is an emotional and spiritual experiance. It does not meen that I dont take it seriously, but I found that it is useless to convince other non-believers. People have an easyer time to believe in God and thus comes naturaly. Much like in my case after the fender bender accident I came to realise the value of life as well as a tug on my heart by the Holy Spirit after making that realization of the value of life. However for other people, they must work to find God themselves. Some people sucseed while others find that its too much for them and give up. However its their choice that they wont try or just give up. If they are wrong however and God does exist, it would be their responsibility for not coming to know the Lord. However, I am still searching for answers on the fate of atheists and agnostics if God does indeed exists and are being judged. However I do have hope that they would be given a choice of accepting Jesus and the Gospels at their judgement at the gates of Heaven. Why I have hope in that is because no one knows what happens in Heaven or who goes there.

Since God is a spirit and thus cannot be seen by our own eyes is because I believe that life is some sort of test and thus he "hides" himself to see that people become greater than they are now presently. Personaly, I feel that if God is proven to exist, it would be harder for people to make an effort to get to know God and thus hamper our spiritual growth. Since God is all-knowing, he knew that there would be people who would be unable or unwilling to accept Him. Since God is a merciful and a just God, I believe that God wont condemn honest and sincear people who cannot accept His existance so long as they make attempts to show love and kindness towards other people. I used to believe that all atheists, agnostics, and non-believers are automaticly condemed to Hell. But I have came to a bit of soul searching as well as some insparation from Eran (I guess Mormons can do that to Catholics ). This is how I came to stop being judgemental against atheists and agnostics. Not because I used to be an agnostic, but because Jesus himself told us not to judge others and worry about our own selves.

I am starting to get the viewpoint that the proof of God is as Eran puts it "not unattainable, but not transferable, so to speak." Much like I can tell you about how I emotionaly and spiritualy feel in regards to God. It would not be the same towards a non-believer because each person is different and have different ways to recive God. No matter how many times I tell you about God, the Gospels, as well as how accepting Jesus changed my life, I feel that it is up to the individual to actively search for God or not.

This is all wonderful stuff, and I am glad you are thinking about your ideology.
But it does not convince me that your god is any more real than a culture myth.
However, I welcome your propriety about humans having different views.

It makes me wonder though, is the 'feeling' of god really a chemical imbalance
This is something that I have came to think about in recent years.
What passed for shamanism in past ages, could be insanity today.


.

 

[GenMarshall]

But it does not convince me that your god is any more real than a culture myth.

As with me that someone who believes in Ancient Polytheism (Norse, Greek, & Roman), Shintoism, and Hinduism would convince me that their God(s) are real

It makes me wonder though, is the 'feeling' of god really a chemical imbalance
This is something that I have came to think about in recent years. What passed for shamanism in past ages, could be insanity today.

I think the answers about the "feeling" of God and Chemical imbalance would be found in Psychology. I myself have taken a stab at Psychology of Religion. Here is what I found after going through the research into it. Sigmund Freud views that the idea of God as being a version of a fatherly image (Hense many cultures view God or the Father in the trinity as an man with a long white beard). A Swiss psychoanalyst, Carl Jung. Jung considered the question of the existence of God by the psychologist himself (and adopted a variant of agnosticism). Jung sees that in the personal unconscious of the individual holds a the collective unconscious which is a repository of human experiences and thus contains "archetypes". The irruption of these images from the unconscious into the realm of consciousness Jung viewed as the basis of religious experience and often of artistic creativity. Currently there is little research in the psychology of religion from a Jungian perspective.

Enter Alfred Adler. Adler's famous ideas is that we all try to compensate for inferiorites that we precive in ourselves. A lack of power oftenly lies at the root of feelings of being inferior. Religion enters into this is though religious people's belief in a God, which is a characteristics of our tendency to strive for perfection and superiority. In one example, many religions God is considered to be perfect and omnipotent and commands people likewise to be perfect. If we too, achive perfection, we become one with God. By identifying God in this way, we compensate for our own imperfections and feelings of inferiority. The idea of God has changed through the years, especialy after the theory of evolution and people being evolved through natural selection. It would coincide that the view of God as not a real being, but an abstract representation of nature's forces. An important thing from Adler is that the idea of God motivates people to act (thus the idea of God acts as a motivator), and that any actions that we make have consequences for ourselves and for others. Religious veiw of God is important because it motivates our goals and directs our social interactions.

Gordon Allport, in his book The Individual and His Religion (1950), he illustrates how people may use religion in different ways. He makes the distinction between mature and [/i]immature religion[/i]. Mature religion, as Allport states, is characterised as a person's approach to religion is dynamic, open-minded, and is able to matain links between inconsistencies. Incontrast to Immature religion, it is self-serving and generaly represents the negative stereotypes that people have about religion. In recent years, the distinction has been encapulated in the terms "intrinstic religion" which are genuine, heartfelt devout faith, and "extrinsic religion" which is refering to a utilitarian use of religion as a mean to an end, such as church attendance to gain social status.

Pascal Boyer, who is a leading figure in cognitive psychology of religion, states that there is no simple explanation for religious consciousness. However Boyer is conserned with explaining the various psychological process involved in the acquisition and transmission of ideas concerning the gods. Religious persons aquire religious ideas and practices through social exposure. For example, a child of a Zen Buddhist will not become a evangecal Christian or a Zulu warrior with out the relevant cultural experiance. Even a mear exposire does not cause a particular religious outlook, such as a person who have been raised Roman Catholic but leaves the church. Nevertheless, some exposure seems to be required (since the person will never invent Roman Catholicism out of thin air). Boyer claims that cognitive science can help us all explain the nature of religious belief and practaces. To the extent on the mechanics controlling aquisition and transmission of religious concepts rely on human brain, however the mechanics are open to computational analysis. In such All thought is computationally structured, including religious thought. Computational approaches can shed light uppon the nature of religious cognition.

These are just some of the psychologists and their work on psychology of religion. I dont believe that all religions experances are related to chemical imballances, however I will acknowlage that some religious have used drugs in the past. Cannabis sativa is used in religious practices in Indian and African communities. Hallucinogentic Mushrooms have been used by cultist amongst the Native Americans in Latin America. Other halluciongentic drugs have been used in religious practaces such as ancent Hunduism and Zoronastrianism.

 

[CurtSibling]

I am pretty impressed at your reasoned answers today, CG!
Good stuff, even if I am not really moved from my stance.
But your ability to debate has evolved very well!

I told you that everyone would benefit from this thread!

 

[Sidhe]

Perhaps we can just let this thread fall into the abyss of the second pages and forgotten about?

In hindsight you'd of never of come up with that little gem without sticking at it

I never knew you knew so much about the psychology of religion, philosopher and psychoanalyst another string to your bow, I just learned more in this thread than I have all day, thanks