I've heard this stated before, especially by Mormons, but I honestly can't get my head around it.
Those of you who feel this way: WHY do you feel this way? Do you honestly feel that God became less deserving of your worship once you had a reason to believe He existed?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
There's a big gulf between God being scientifically provable and people having reasons to believe he exists.
I have reasons why I believe he exists, but I do not believe they are scientifically provable.
I'll decline to answer your main question because I'm not sure what I think about it.
If nobody answers, I'll give my understanding of the reasoning behind that statement.
Posted by oolung (Member # 8995) on :
This is the first time I hear it... doesn't make much sense to me But then of course as a believer I DO think that I've got reasons to believe in Him Posted by oolung (Member # 8995) on :
This is the first time I hear it... doesn't make much sense to me But then of course as a believer I DO think that I've got reasons to believe in Him Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
I have no comment on the question itself, but I'd like to point out a problem with your phrasing. "A reason to believe He existed" and "scientifically provable" are not the same. I have plenty of reasons to believe that God exisits, but they come down to belief/faith. None of them are scientifically provable. People can answer the question in your post "no" while still believing the statement in your title.
Posted by Dante (Member # 1106) on :
I've never heard that statement before from anyone, LDS or not. And I know a lot of people. LDS and not.
You know, Tom, every time you attribute something to "most Mormons" or "lots of Mormons" or "especially by Mormons," I always wonder who, exactly, you're talking about. I usually assume it's just hyperbole on your part...that, and I know it suits your purposes to paint "Mormons" with a large, even monolithic brush.
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
Tom, I'm not sure who you're responding to. I think I DO have a reason to believe in God. A subjective reason that I can't communicate to others.
There are times and places where God has made Himself pretty undeniable to individuals, but even then, they had to show faith. Real faith isn't just "belief in something you don't see". People also talk about "keeping faith" with someone, in the sense of showing loyalty, trustworthiness, devotion ...
The more important aspect of faith that really defines people's actions is trust in God, and trustworthiness to actually live by what you believe. Even people who have spoken to God face-to-face still have to live up to their convictions afterwards, and not everyone manages to pull it off.
So I'm thinking that I don't actually agree with your statement. However, I do think that the kind of faith that God is really looking for the most is the kind that someone doesn't even need to have heard of Him to show. You can have faith in your convictions and ideals and live up to them in spite of the temptation to abandon them and pursue an easier life, regardless of what you think about the existence of God.
Naturally, I think that there are more focused opportunities to serve God that are only available to those who believe in Him, and I'm glad to be one of those. But that doesn't by any means invalidate everyone else's faith. Knowledge of God isn't a prerequisite to pleasing Him, and I don't think that He resents those who are concerned enough with finding the actual truth, whatever it is, that it takes more time and effort for them to find Him, if they do at all.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Admittedly, I'd be ashamed of any divinity that would submit to a scientific proof. There is something small about science. For the same reason that pre-nups mock marriage, and you don't hook your kid up to a polygraph machine, God should not need to bother with publically demonstrable proofs.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
If God were scientifically proveable, the world at large would be forced, out of respect for plain facts (the whole, it's sitting right in front of your face thing), to accept the fact that God exists. This would be tyrannical because there would be very little choice in whether you believe in him or not. Were God scientifically proveable, the crazies and nutjobs in the world would be the ones who refuse to accept that science has proven God's very existence. They would be just like a person who walks down the street yelling out loud that gravity doesn't exist.
The difference is being able to CHOOSE to believe in God vs. being forced to believe in God through the demands of social acceptance.
Posted by Shepherd (Member # 7380) on :
Question, the big bang theory begins with all the matter in the universe squeezed into a microscopic sphere. WHERE DID THE MATTER COME FROM???
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:God should not need to bother with publically demonstrable proofs.
A bunch of priests of Ba'al would like to have a word with you about that-- oh, hey there, Elijah...
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:The difference is being able to CHOOSE to believe in God vs. being forced to believe in God through the demands of social acceptance.
But I don't like that either. That's still submitting God to a matter of our fancy. I don't conflate my choices and my beliefs.
Posted by Boothby171 (Member # 807) on :
Shepherd,
WHERE DID THE GOD COME FROM???
Posted by Shepherd (Member # 7380) on :
And therein lies the entire point of belief over fact.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I have to say that I find the idea kind of strange. The idea that being "forced" to believe in something that actually exists would be tyranical makes no sense to me. You could as easily say that because gravity is provable we are forced to believe in it and therefore God (assuming God invented gravity) is a tyrant. I should have the right not to believe in gravity, darn it! My free will is being infringed!
I don't get this particular argument. Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I too must admit that I have yet to hear that statment made before by anyone of any religious creed.
The only possible explanation that I can come up with to explain how a God that can be identified through scientific means would be tyrannical is the following idea:
The moment we learn any truth, we carry the responsibility of that truth. For example, if you are walking down the street and you look down an alley and you see a woman being beaten by a man, you now know the truth of that woman's predicament and you have a responsibility to come to here assistance (from a one ethical point of view).
If you conducted a scientific experiment that thus proved the existance of God well then you carry the responsibility to know what his will is concerning you ready or not. It is what science is famous for, unearthing truths regardless of whether the human race is prepared to receive the knowledge. Discovering how to make a bomb out of atomic energy though is childs play compared to the revelation of an undoubtable God and his plan for all creation.
And what if you are not ready to follow God's will to the ultimate extent that he expects of you? Don't you think you might start to wish at the very least that his will concerning you had been gradually revealed to you bit by bit? Instead you now know God exists, what his will is concerning you and you have no excuse to not obey. Not only that to not obey is to sin against truth (or to declare war against God) and now any chance you had of being happy is crushed under the weight of so much truth.
It is merciful on Gods part that he does not simply reveal himself to all his children, for everyone is at a different stage of readiness to receive truth from God. Yes ultimate happiness is in knowing all that is true, and all that is true comes from God, but a God that simply reveals himself and his epic plan for mankind is tyranical, for he would be sending all his children to hell when they all ultimately give up on being perfect this very instant.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I've never heard that statement before from anyone, LDS or not.
See, I have. I've actually heard Porter use the same logic, for example. And I know Jon Boy has, too.
The argument as I've heard it goes that knowing God exists means that people will have no choice but to believe in Him, and therefore not living according to His law would result in pretty much automatic and eternal damnation for one reason or another -- whereas, by keeping us in the dark, He provides us with wiggle room.
I've heard this a few times before. But it's never made much sense to me, precisely because -- as has been observed in this thread -- it seems like people who have personal experiences with God continue to worship God out of love anyway, and not out of fear of His tyranny. Why, then, would it be impossible to give everyone a personal experience with God -- either in a testably scientific way, or not -- for fear of eliminating doubt and thus Free Will?
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Tom-
I haven't heard that statement made by Mormons before, only by one Catholic, whom you quoted. However, I can see where you may run across that idea. I'll take a stab at it if you don't mind (although you seem familiar enough with Mormon doctrine to probably come to a conclusion of your own).
This sentiment you've heard may have roots in the LDS doctrine of agency. According to the plan of salvation, our time on earth is both a chance to progress and a test. Neither one is possible without the complete freedom to choose. A God who can be proved by science would hamper progression, infringe on our agency, and invalidate the test. By taking away our ability to choose, he would become like a tyrant I guess.
I'm not sure what I think about that, but being LDS I would imagine that could be one method of reasoning that would cause one to make the above statement.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: . . . but a God that simply reveals himself and his epic plan for mankind is tyranical, for he would be sending all his children to hell when they all ultimately give up on being perfect this very instant.
Unless his epic plan for mankind doesn't include a hell, or sending anyone there, or even does include a hell but also includes forgiveness for people being less then perfect. You know, just sayin'. Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Simply knowing there is a God does not impose perfection on the individual, it merely gives yout the responsibility to seek out his will concerning you. If you did not then you would be commiting sin.
Knowing there is a God because he has communicated with you is still not the same thing as God appearing to you and discussing with you all the particulars of his plan.
But even at that level what benefit is gleaned when God tells a wicked person that he exists? The wicked man is not ready to even know God much less obey him. But if the wicked man knows there is a God and that what he is doing is wrong, he is no longer sinning in ignorance and when you sin with a full knowledge of what you are doing that is what God damns folks for.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:A God who can be proved by science would hamper progression, infringe on our agency, and invalidate the test.
I don't understand how that might impinge on agency any more than the commonly-cited claim that anyone who reads the Book of Mormon with an open mind will sense the Truth. People disbelieve science all the time, too.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Tom a more accurate statement than "A God who is scientifically provable would be a tyrant"
would be
"A God who is scientifically unprovable is merciful"
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: . . . and when you sin with a full knowledge of what you are doing that is what God damns folks for.
Again, How can you know this? That may be your belief, but I don't happen to believe that God damns folks, at all. So if I happen to be right, and the God I believe in showed up and said hi to everyone, people could still sin and He could still forgive them and there wouldn't be a problem. Most people would probably have a lot more motivation to try a lot harder not to sin, but like you said, no one is perfect, and God knows that. He created us this way. (All, of course, in my opinion.) Your argument doesn't make sense unless you assign a lot of conditions to God that I don't think anyone can know if are true or not.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:People disbelieve science all the time, too.
You're right. People have the amazing ability to believe or disbelieve pretty much anything, even in the face of blatant evidence to the contrary.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:"A God who is scientifically unprovable is merciful"
Is it your contention that more people are worshipping the correct God in the correct manner now than would do so if they knew He existed and wanted them to behave in a certain way?
What mercy do you believe is extended to those people who are currently living incorrectly?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:people who have personal experiences with God continue to worship God out of love anyway, and not out of fear of His tyranny. Why, then, would it be impossible to give everyone a personal experience with God -- either in a testably scientific way, or not -- for fear of eliminating doubt and thus Free Will?
I believe that God wants to give everyone a shot at knowing Him. Why certain individuals don't seem to get a response from Him is between that individual and God.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
Perhaps it sounds nutty, but I really don't care to have proof of G'd's existence. Whether He exists or not is almost irrelevant to me. I just follow His commandments because He said that I should. He doesn't require me to believe, just to obey.
Scoff all you like, but it works for me.
Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
quote: Why, then, would it be impossible to give everyone a personal experience with God -- either in a testably scientific way, or not -- for fear of eliminating doubt and thus Free Will?
My Mormonism is rather idiosyncratic, but I believe that there is more worth in the journey than in the arrival. That is, one learns more about one's self, and about God, in the struggle to learn about the divine than one would simply in having it awarded. *shrug* I think honest struggle is more valuable than complacent faith. In the Book of Mormon, there's a guy who, upon learning of God, addresses him as such: "If there is a God, and if thou art God."
I also like what Irami said. I'm a fan of philosophical deism.
quote:the commonly-cited claim that anyone who reads the Book of Mormon with an open mind will sense the Truth.
Commonly cited, but I think there's a naivete in it which most Mormons recognize. Personally, it didn't work for me, still doesn't.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Whether He exists or not is almost irrelevant to me. I just follow His commandments because He said that I should.
Except, logically, if He doesn't exist, He didn't say you should.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
EL Jay: Well I thought we were explaining why a God who is scientifically provable would be tyrannical and the whole idea was to use ones own personal beliefs to explain it. Did you want me to scientifically prove that God was even scientifically provable?
Mr_porteiro_head: Christians operate under the premise that truth revealed by the Holy Ghost is impossible to deny, stronger than seeing, hearing, or any other sense. It leaves the person without any doubt. To be quite honest a God that cannot provide a medium for communicating to his children that isnt falible would be a pretty pathetic God, most people just dont realize eyes, ears, touch, etc are not that infallible method.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Well, like I said, I haven't really spent the time (weeks/months/years) to think about it. My only response would be that there seems to be a difference between obvious scientific facts (like gravity) and subtle matters of the spirit. My impression of what you were asking for was of proof similar to the existance of gravity. Spiritual truth is subjective and dependant on so many individual factors. Gravity is not.
And just to clear up the Book of Mormon claim, it's not as you have stated it. It requires a lot more than an open mind.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote:I've heard this stated before, especially by Mormons, but I honestly can't get my head around it.
I can't get my head around your post. I am no fan of Mormonism (the religion--not the people). I was raised in the church, went on a mission, went to BYU briefly, and left the church.
I have NEVER heard ANYTHING remotely resembling a belief that a scientifically proven God would be a tyrant. I have heard a lot about how the Book of Mormon is tangible proof that Joseph Smith saw God.
quote: The argument as I've heard it goes that knowing God exists means that people will have no choice but to believe in Him, and therefore not living according to His law would result in pretty much automatic and eternal damnation for one reason or another -- whereas, by keeping us in the dark, He provides us with wiggle room.
I have heard that line of reasoning--except for the bolded part. The reasoning isn't that those who don't live to his law would be dammed (that applies to your scenario and the accepted LDS belief), but rather that everyone would live according to God's law and have no agency.
Mormon’s believe that there were competing plans for God’s children’s’ salvation. Christ provided a plan with agency and atonement. Satan provided a plan that would compel everyone to be saved. Maybe Satan’s plan was to prove God existed—taking away agency (from an LDS perspective).
I always imagined it like giving someone the answer key to a test. I good teacher will have the test itself be a learning experience. In the Mormon view (in my opinion), the test develops character--and if you have the answer key there is no true progression.
I am not endorsing that belief--just pointing out that believing that way would not make God a tyrant if he were to scientifically prove himself.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Except, logically, if He doesn't exist, He didn't say you should.
I SAID it sounded nutty, didn't I?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:My impression of what you were asking for was of proof similar to the existance of gravity.
Sure. There are still people out there who choose to believe that gravity doesn't actually exist.
quote: It requires a lot more than an open mind.
Been there, done that, got the T-shirt. It is NOT a reproducible or reliable experiment. But if it WERE reliable, why would it not be as much of a threat to agency as a reliable scientific test? (In fact, wouldn't it be a reliable scientific test?) If it really did work in all cases, wouldn't that eliminate agency in roughly the same way?
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
BlackBlade, okay. I misunderstood the tack you were taking. Nevermind.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
There is a big difference between having good reasons to believe in God and having uncontrovertable, scientific proof. Faith is a choice. If there were no room for doubt than we would be forced to believe rather than deciding to believe. That God leaves me the space to meet God - well hardly halfway - of my own volition is very precious to me. I have responsibility for my own actions, I am an adult rather than a child. I get the opportunity to say yes.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:There is a big difference between having good reasons to believe in God and having uncontrovertable, scientific proof.
I'm not sure I can think of a "good reason" that wouldn't also constitute enough "proof" as to eliminate doubt. Can you give me an example?
Posted by IanO (Member # 186) on :
I just don't get it either.
A passage comes to mind, paraphrased, anyway.
"You believe in one God? Well, you're doing quite well. And yet the demons believe- and shudder."- James 2:19
A person's freewill is not impinged by the facts. It is expanded. Having 'scientific proof' of God's existence wouldn't make it tough for people to deny God. The demons, in the context of James' letter, deny his authority over them. His existence is not an issue. Yet they refuse to acknowledge his authority over them and thus shudder in fear of the consequences of that.
And, according to LDS cosmology, during the presentation of God's plan in the pre-existence, God's existence was not an issue. Adherence to God's proposed plan was. And we (presumably, since we are here and therefore took a stand on the correct side) exercised our freewill in obedience to God's plan- as premortal beings in heaven. Freewill existed then, too.
Freewill, or agency, was not hindered by unchangeable facts.
Though it does leave less 'wiggle room.' But I'd imagine that some atheists and agnostics might like a definite answer. Some are quite fearful of 'self-delusion', after all, and a definite answer would go a long way to allaying those fears.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I'm not sure I can think of a "good reason" that wouldn't also constitute enough "proof" as to eliminate doubt. Can you give me an example?
An example that you would consider "good" -- I doubt I can. One that I consider good -- yes.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:One that I consider good -- yes.
And yet if it's good enough for you to consider, why hasn't it reduced your agency?
Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
I thought you didn't believe in agency, Tom.
Personally, I believe in God because I choose to.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
Christians operate under the premise that truth revealed by the Holy Ghost is impossible to deny, stronger than seeing, hearing, or any other sense. It leaves the person without any doubt. To be quite honest a God that cannot provide a medium for communicating to his children that isnt falible would be a pretty pathetic God, most people just dont realize eyes, ears, touch, etc are not that infallible method.
I don't operate under that premise. I believe that God (while of course capable of providing an infallible medium for communicating with his children) has chosen a medium that requires our willing cooperation.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:My impression of what you were asking for was of proof similar to the existance of gravity.
Sure. There are still people out there who choose to believe that gravity doesn't actually exist.
No there's not. They all jumped off buildings and removed themselves from the gene pool.
About the Book of Mormon, I'm aware from your previous posts that you have taken the challenge and not received results of any meaning to you. However, I don't believe the challenge is testable in the realm of science. This thread seems to be an extention of the one where the quote originated.
In this example there are so many things that cannot be scientifically measured. Even the soft-science of psychology would be hard pressed to come up with a decent experiment. Listed are the qualifications for an answer. To me, the first item alone exempts it from scientific proof. *if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them *ponder it in your hearts *if ye shall ask with a sincere heart *with real intent *having faith in Christ *he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost
How do you quantify those scientifically. How much faith is enough? What is faith? What relating to Christ do you need to have faith in? How sincere does your heart have to be? What do you need to be sincere about? What does your intent need to be? How do you measure intent? How will this manifestation occur? How is the Holy Ghost experienced? What measure of feeling reaches the point of having received an answer?
You can have people fill out questionaires, rate their sincerity on a scale of 1 to 10, etc but how scientifically valid is it? Of course, I think most of psychology is BS anyway where you could find whatever results you are looking for.
Tom, I would really expect that you would think that not everything can be cataloged, quantified, and proved by science.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:I'm not sure I can think of a "good reason" that wouldn't also constitute enough "proof" as to eliminate doubt. Can you give me an example?
Because the Bible says God exists. . Because people one trusts, such as priests, say God exists. Because of a subjective experience that leads one to believe God exists. Because the nature of the world is such that it seems likely to one that God exists. Because there are certain things observed that one can only explain by the existence of God.
All of these are good reasons to believe God eixsts, yet none of them are absolute proof that should eliminate all your doubts.
Furthermore, if "good reasons" are only "good" if they eliminate all doubt, then there is no good reason to believe in scientific claims, or almost anything else for that matter. By the definition of the scientific method, scientific theories are always in doubt.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:And yet if it's good enough for you to consider, why hasn't it reduced your agency?
Tom -- I never said that I agreed with the statement which is the topic of this thread. I also never said that having evidence of God would decrease my agency.
Just because one Mormon said it doesn't mean I agree with it.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris: If God were scientifically proveable, the world at large would be forced, out of respect for plain facts (the whole, it's sitting right in front of your face thing), to accept the fact that God exists.
I guess you haven't read the Bible much. God slams Egypt with plagues, and marches us out across a sea bottom that had been sea moments before. And the first thing we do is start complaining.
Trust me, knowing as a fact that God exists would not force you to do anything. Except possibly acknowledge that God exists, but big deal. I'm forced to acknowledge that the keyboard I'm typing on exists, but that doesn't create "tyranny".
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I guess you haven't read the Bible much.
Rude, much?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
There is a difference between reading the Bible and believing that it is literal truth.
I think your analogy with the keyboard is flawed in that your keyboard (I assume) isn't (among other things) the creator of the world, all-knowing, all powerful and so forth.
edit: and when are you going to come listen to Irish music with me? I'm singing in Evanston tonight - though you (unlike poor, single me, sigh ) probably have Valentine's Day plans.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:A person's freewill is not impinged by the facts.
Are you sure? If you knew that there was a sniper aiming at your head, ready to kill you the instant you do anything to criticize the government, would you still feel free to critize the government? I strongly suspect you'd be much more free to criticize if you didn't realize that fact. And thus, knowing certain facts can make you less free.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
There's also a difference between "having scientific proof" of God's existence and "having his existence constantly in your face so that you can't possibly deny his existence or do anything contrary to his will." I believe the latter would consitute tyranny, but not the former.
Along the same lines, I put a lot of trust in scientific proof too, but I don't think it's the be all and end all of knowledge.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots: There's also a difference between "having scientific proof" of God's existence and "having his existence constantly in your face so that you can't possibly deny his existence or do anything contrary to his will." I believe the latter would consitute tyranny, but not the former.
Along the same lines, I put a lot of trust in scientific proof too, but I don't think it's the be all and end all of knowledge.
I would go along with that, afr. Probably better said although it is a question of degree. My original statement was in a thread where we were discussing scientific proof, hence the phrasing.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I don't understand how that might impinge on agency any more than the commonly-cited claim that anyone who reads the Book of Mormon with an open mind will sense the Truth.
One big difference between those two is that we don't believe all you have to do is read the Book of Mormon -- the oft-cited claim includes the stipulation that you have to pray with faith in Christ in order to get that assurance concerning the Book of Mormon.
If you've done that, you've already exercised a lot of agency to get to that point.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I think the proposition listed in the title is related to another one that I have heard expressed more often: That human beings were separated from God by the Fall and, since then, most have been unable to fully experience God without losing ourselves (a term I don't intend to define) in some way. One possible reason for the Incarnation was to allow God to bridge this gap for us and allow us to voluntarily accept God without losing ourselves.
According to this line of thinking, most people being brought into the direct presence of God would despair or become subsumed in God.
If the "scientific proof" mentioned in the title proposition were not proof that some creator exists, or proof that some super-powerful being can do cool tricks which we don't understand, but rather proof and explanation of the entire nature of God, and "tyrant" meant "would make meaningless the free will of humans," then I could see the statement being a summary of the line of reasoning I outlined above. But it's a long way from there to here, so I'm not sure that's what people mean by it.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: If the "scientific proof" mentioned in the title proposition were not proof that some creator exists, or proof that some super-powerful being can do cool tricks which we don't understand, but rather proof and explanation of the entire nature of God, and "tyrant" meant "would make meaningless the free will of humans," then I could see the statement being a summary of the line of reasoning I outlined above. But it's a long way from there to here, so I'm not sure that's what people mean by it.
Thanks, Dagnonee. That is pretty close to what I meant.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
More thoughts on scientific proof:
First, I most firmly do not believe that the existence of God is somehow anathemic to scientific observation and proof. I see no reason why the existence of God cannot be substantiated by scientific observation; it all depends on the conclusions drawn. I see plenty of evidence for God's existence when I learn what we know about biological processes, for instance--how orderly and purposeful they are.
Having said that, I would tend to be skeptical of anyone saying they had scientifically proved the existence of God, as I would be wary of any God they postulated out of this proof. Mostly I would be skeptical of the need for God to be proved scientifically--there are other, better ways to arrive at a sure knowledge of his existence and nature.
Posted by IanO (Member # 186) on :
quote:Are you sure? If you knew that there was a sniper aiming at your head, ready to kill you the instant you do anything to criticize the government, would you still feel free to critize the government? I strongly suspect you'd be much more free to criticize if you didn't realize that fact. And thus, knowing certain facts can make you less free.
No, I would not be any less free. I would still have the same choices I had before. I could choose to do what I'd do before having that knowledge. But there'd be unjust and instant consequences.
Or are people who choose to die for causes not exercising their freewill in the face of just such a threat?
And I think that's an overly-constructed analogy anyway, don't you? We're not talking about a sniper ready to pop you at a word. We're talking about a simple thing. If there was some sort of empirical proof of God's existence, would that mean you were any less free to decide how you'd react to that?
As I (and starLisa, somewhat thoughtlessly) pointed out, there are accounts in the Bible (regardless of whether they are factual. I'm sure there are similar accounts in numerous religious works where there are those who refuse to obey despite direct command) of beings who know of God's existence and yet do not acknowledge it or refuse to accept his authority.
I acknowledge the government's existence. That does not mean I am not free to decide whether or not I accept it's authority over me (and of course, I will often suffer the consequences of that, too). My freewill in regard to deciding if the government exists no longer exists, true. But my freewill regarding how I choose to accept that government remains.
But the more I think about it, the more it becomes clear to me that the sentiment being expressed is that with the question being open, there is more 'wiggle room', more opportunity for mercy for people who weren't sure.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I think that mere existence is a poor standard to use for choosing a deity to worship. For my money, you're better off following the teachings of a benevolent deity that doesn't exist than those of a malevolent one that does exist.
Posted by IanO (Member # 186) on :
exactly.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: I think that mere existence is a poor standard to use for choosing a deity to worship. For my money, you're better off following the teachings of a benevolent deity that doesn't exist than those of a malevolent one that does exist.
I agree. And I'm grateful that those aren't our choices.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: I think that mere existence is a poor standard to use for choosing a deity to worship. For my money, you're better off following the teachings of a benevolent deity that doesn't exist than those of a malevolent one that does exist.
Which is why I'd be wary of any God "scientifically proven" to exist.
Added: However, faith that your God actually exists, however you go about gaining that faith, adds a lot of oomph to your devotion.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:If you knew that there was a sniper aiming at your head, ready to kill you the instant you do anything to criticize the government, would you still feel free to critize the government?
What, if you're not SURE there's a sniper, is the consequence of criticizing the government?
To elaborate: why is it worse to disobey God if you know you're disobeying Him?
[ February 14, 2006, 02:38 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:I guess you haven't read the Bible much.
Rude, much?
Wasn't intending to be. It was a figure of speech. As the remainder of the post should have made clear.
Posted by BandoCommando (Member # 7746) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:God should not need to bother with publically demonstrable proofs.
A bunch of priests of Ba'al would like to have a word with you about that-- oh, hey there, Elijah...
I was just thinking of that story right before I read your post....
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: There is a difference between reading the Bible and believing that it is literal truth.
I think your analogy with the keyboard is flawed in that your keyboard (I assume) isn't (among other things) the creator of the world, all-knowing, all powerful and so forth.
Um... would it be different if it was an Invisible Pink Keyboard (may its keys never stick)?
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: edit: and when are you going to come listen to Irish music with me? I'm singing in Evanston tonight - though you (unlike poor, single me, sigh ) probably have Valentine's Day plans.
Where in Evanston?
Actually, we don't really do the whole Valentine's thing. Saints and all, you know. But as fate would have it, the shirt I'm wearing today is red. I didn't even make the connection until someone at work asked me if I'd worn it because it's Valentine's Day. At which point my cheeks matched my shirt for a moment.
Our plans involve putting Tova to bed and probably sacking out early ourselves. Havah's been sick for the past couple of days.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: Where in Evanston?
Actually, we don't really do the whole Valentine's thing. Saints and all, you know. But as fate would have it, the shirt I'm wearing today is red. I didn't even make the connection until someone at work asked me if I'd worn it because it's Valentine's Day. At which point my cheeks matched my shirt for a moment.
Our plans involve putting Tova to bed and probably sacking out early ourselves. Havah's been sick for the past couple of days.
Ah, of course. Whoops!
I sing at Celtic Knot on the occasional Tuesday. More in the late spring and summer. October through mid-April (Easter) I usually have Church stuff on Tuesday nights.
Hope Havah is better soon and that you don't catch it!
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: I think the proposition listed in the title is related to another one that I have heard expressed more often: That human beings were separated from God by the Fall and, since then, most have been unable to fully experience God without losing ourselves (a term I don't intend to define) in some way. One possible reason for the Incarnation was to allow God to bridge this gap for us and allow us to voluntarily accept God without losing ourselves.
Hang on, though : Didn't Adam and Eve have free will before the Fall? They certainly did have direct experience of your god, right? Yet they also dis-obeyed, rather badly in fact. Incidentally, why the 4000-year break between fall and incarnation? Your god is supposed to be outside of time; was he, perchance, a little careless about precisely when he fixed that break? I mean, I know it's easy to do, I myself should be doing my taxes rather than posting on Hatcrack. But still.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Against my better judgment:
quote:Didn't Adam and Eve have free will before the Fall? They certainly did have direct experience of your god, right?
Yes to both questions. The separation occurred because of the Fall. The line of reasoning goes that the inability of most humans to directly experience God's presence and maintain their personhood is one of the consequences of the Fall.
quote:Yet they also dis-obeyed, rather badly in fact.
Well, yes, this is evidence they had free will.
quote:Incidentally, why the 4000-year break between fall and incarnation?
Because there were other humanity needed to experience first.
quote:Your god is supposed to be outside of time
Which is why the 4,000 year gap is meaningless.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Those last two things seem to contradict each other. If there was a good reason for the gap, then it was hardly meaningless, was it? Just out of curiosity, what were the 'other things' that needed to be done first? It does seem to me that the experience of a pagan in China, 3000BCE, doesn't do me much good unless he wrote it down.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Those last two things seem to contradict each other. If there was a good reason for the gap, then it was hardly meaningless, was it?
"Meaningless" was poor word choice. "not hindering of the ultimate purpose" would be better.
quote:Just out of curiosity, what were the 'other things' that needed to be done first?
There's a whole book about it. It's a good read.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Yes to both questions. The separation occurred because of the Fall. The line of reasoning goes that the inability of most humans to directly experience God's presence and maintain their personhood is one of the consequences of the Fall.
Oops, I forgot this part. Your assertion is, then, that Adam and Eve would be capable of free will even with direct proof of god (or did their nature also change after the fall?) but most people wouldn't? By the way, does the Catholic church have a doctrine on whether they were accepted into Heaven after their deaths?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Your assertion
It's acutally not an assertion. It's a line of reasoning about which I haven't made a decision.
quote:is, then, that Adam and Eve would be capable of free will even with direct proof of god (or did their nature also change after the fall?) but most people wouldn't?
All of us would have been so capable had the Fall not occurred. Since then, few are so capable.
And it's not direct proof that would pose the problem; it's direct experience of the presence of God.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Your assertion is, then, that Adam and Eve would be capable of free will even with direct proof of god (or did their nature also change after the fall?) but most people wouldn't?
Perhaps they were different from everyone else in this regard which is why they were chosen to be the first. Not my belief, but I'm just saying.
My belief is that their nature changed.
Posted by mistaben (Member # 8721) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:A person's freewill is not impinged by the facts.
Are you sure? If you knew that there was a sniper aiming at your head, ready to kill you the instant you do anything to criticize the government, would you still feel free to critize the government? I strongly suspect you'd be much more free to criticize if you didn't realize that fact. And thus, knowing certain facts can make you less free.
Being afraid of doing something (or of the consequences) is not the same as not having the ability to do something. The choice is still there.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: Where in Evanston?
Actually, we don't really do the whole Valentine's thing. Saints and all, you know. But as fate would have it, the shirt I'm wearing today is red. I didn't even make the connection until someone at work asked me if I'd worn it because it's Valentine's Day. At which point my cheeks matched my shirt for a moment.
Our plans involve putting Tova to bed and probably sacking out early ourselves. Havah's been sick for the past couple of days.
Ah, of course. Whoops!
I sing at Celtic Knot on the occasional Tuesday. More in the late spring and summer. October through mid-April (Easter) I usually have Church stuff on Tuesday nights.
Hope Havah is better soon and that you don't catch it!
Thanks. So far, I've mostly caught a severe case of exhaustion. I looked Celtic Knot up, and I know the area. I'm usually about a block away from there every week or two, but usually on Wednesdays. I probably won't be able to go tonight, but definitely let me know when you're singing there next.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I will. I am always very careful walking by Comix Revolution lest I get sucked in and lost forever.
Posted by pepperuda (Member # 1573) on :
What would constitute a scientific proof that God exists? How would it be replicable?
Would He have to show Himself on demand for anyone who asked?
Would He have to touch them so that they would know that He was real?
Would even that be proof enough? Or would He need to be ever present through all ages so that each person would have tangible proof of his existence?
Or are miracles like pillars of fire and burning bushes sufficient proof? It seems that there has never been a dearth of such forms of proof, yet those are not scientific evidence that God exists.
Unless we lived in a sphere with God, where he were to us as tangible as we are to one another, I can't see why or how He would scientifically PROVE His existence.
Yet, the Fall separates us physically and spiritually from God. There are those who God has chosen to show Himself to. I believe that it is because He knows who could handle it, yet even those people had to be changed in order to stand His presence.
My only comment on the mercy of God in this case is that IF scientific proof means that He has to show Himself personally to anyone who asks, even if it means their obliteration, then He would be as cruel as any parent who gives their child anything they want on demand without consideration of what is actually best for the child.
Once we lived in a sphere with God and knew His existence. It didn't prevent us from making choices. It didn't prevent us from chosing evil. So, what was the point in the Fall and this sphere where we aren't able to prove the existence of God? 1. To gain a physical body and experience mortality so that we could know sorrow to appreciate joy. We couldn't have these imperfect bodies in the presence of God. We couldn't have stood it.
2. The journey to know God through faith developes character and characteristics that eventually enable us to become like God.
3. The delay between action and consequence gives us a chance to reflect, change ourselves.(again developing character)
This was longer than intended and didn't exactly address the issue at hand. They are my beliefs based on my understanding of the nature of our existence. Obviously, if you understand our existence differently you can argue these points any number of ways.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Well-put comments, pepperuda.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
Tom, I'm been a member of the LDS Church for 21 years. I've served callings as both a missionary and a teacher, and tried my best to pay attention to the teachings of the scriptures and the church leaders.
What you attribute as sometjing you've "heard very often from Mormons" I have -never- heard before you wrote it down in this thread.
And I've heard -lots- of statements about proofs of the existence or non-existence of God.
Taking statements by two members on this board, and building it up as some sort of major LDS doctrine or belief...well, that doesn't work.
They have opinions. So does every other member. That doesn't make their opinion doctrine, or even one widely shared.
I feel you're making an unfair blanket statement.
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
I propose a scientific experiment: Everyone on hatrack pray really really hard for me to win the Powerball jackpot tomorrow.
I promise to let you know if it works.
--Enigmatic
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
So you'll know that God exists when he answers "no"?
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
That or if he smites me for trying, I suppose.
Hmmm, no fair praying for smiting!
--Enigmatic
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
All the kneejerk Mormons here need to step off.
Let's look at Puffy's quote. Let's see if we can pick out the relevant bits. I'll highlight them.
quote:What you attribute as sometjing you've "heard very often from Mormons" I have -never- heard before you wrote it down in this thread.
And I've heard -lots- of statements about proofs of the existence or non-existence of God.
Taking statements by two members on this board, and building it up as some sort of major LDS doctrine or belief...well, that doesn't work.
I believe your question -- if it WAS a question, and not just a flailing if well-intentioned "clarification" -- contains the seeds of its own answer.
If you felt that I was implying that this was some sort of official Mormon doctrine, I'm sorry for somehow giving you the wrong idea. In fact, as I understand Mormon doctrine, this very idea is specifically contraindicated by other points of doctrine. However, that doesn't change the fact that I've heard this same idea very frequently from Mormons (and, coming up in second place, Catholics (as has been observed here)).
I think it boils down to any given individual's understanding of the role of agency (and the impact evidence has upon it).
Posted by Boothby171 (Member # 807) on :
I just wanted to get one thing clear:
Adam and Eve (and, perhaps Moses) had direct, clear evidence that God existed (for the sake of our discussion). Prima facie evidence, I would say, would be considered scientific, eh?
And Adam and Eve, even though they knew, directly, that God existed--and, specifically, what he wanted them NOT to do--they were still able to exercise free will (whatever that is).
I don't see the problem, then, with God providing direct evidence of his existence.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
I thought that in order to be scientific evidence it had to be repeatable.
If you do consider it scientific evidence, then to you God has been proved by science. Find your nearest church.
Posted by Boothby171 (Member # 807) on :
The Adam and Eve issue, from a real point of view, is only hearsay (not "heresy," mind you--"hearsay")
I was presenting it as a hypothetical, since many people who believe in God, and who believe that he should not reveal himself (for whatever reason), may also believe in Adam and Eve either as real people, or (at least) as representations of critically important lessons. Putting that all together leads to what I thought would be a valid question:
If A is true, and if A then B, then B is true.
I proposed that "A" was true, for the sake of the discussion. And even if "A" is false (as I believe it is), at least the approach gives us a way to pursue the logic of the issue.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
And many of those have given reasons why Adam and Eve were in a different situation. *shrug*
Posted by Boothby171 (Member # 807) on :
Different situation?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: And many of those have given reasons why Adam and Eve were in a different situation. *shrug*
Actually, I think they have asserted that they were in a different situation. There is a subtle difference between this, and giving actual reasons.
Posted by Boothby171 (Member # 807) on :
Hmm...definitions!
(Spoken as if by Homer Simson: "Mmmmm...donuts!")
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Different situation?
Yes. Different.
quote:Actually, I think they have asserted that they were in a different situation. There is a subtle difference between this, and giving actual reasons.
OK. Whatever.
The actual reasons, were they given, would be just as disbelieved by you as the foundational premise that God exists, so why does this make a difference?
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boothby171: I was presenting it as a hypothetical, since many people who believe in God, and who believe that he should not reveal himself (for whatever reason), may also believe in Adam and Eve either as real people, or (at least) as representations of critically important lessons.
I don't think anyone has said that God should not reveal Himself ever. I think the focus of the discussion has been the nature of revelations: scientific or otherwise. I cannot think of any scriptural examples of God revealing himself in a scientific way. Adam & Eve or Moses would not count as scientific for a number of reasons.
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
Actually, "enforced" belief is a reason I don't like theocracies. I think in some ways it cheapens a true believer's faith. I also tend to think people rebel against things they are forced to do, so it would actually detract from God.
Similiar to God providing scientific proof. What value is belief in God, when it requires no faith at all?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
What value is it, if it does?
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
Well, I would say that it has value to me, and to God.
To you, I would say it has no value. But since I don't really value your opinion, it's kind of a moot point.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Enigmatic: Hmmm, no fair praying for smiting!
Foiled again! Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
For the record, I won $1 in the lottery yesterday. Draw your own theological conclusions.
--Enigmatic
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Clearly, this was because I was good and did not pray for you to be smited. Smitten?
Posted by human_2.0 (Member # 6006) on :
I don't think Christians believe God's provability has any connection to tyrany. And if they do, I don't see how the belief could be based on Christian doctrine.
I personally believe God has his reasons for "hiding" now. But avoiding tyrancy is hardly one of them.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
But then of course as a believer I DO think that I've got reasons to believe in Him ![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)