posted
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?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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 Posts: 218 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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 Posts: 218 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1068 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Question, the big bang theory begins with all the matter in the universe squeezed into a microscopic sphere. WHERE DID THE MATTER COME FROM???
Posts: 242 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
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...
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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. Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
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'. Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 10397 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 794 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
"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.
Posts: 1346 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
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".
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[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)
