sA: You'd get a better response to invitations to discussion if your tone and manner indicated that you would show respect and broad-mindedness during such a discussion.
quote:So...would you clarify how you know God exists? I'm not particularly interested in truth vs. absolute truth. I assume you mean that you are certain enough in your belief to consider it true rather than simply possible. The important question here is how you know?
Most of the time, the heavens are silent. I don't get answers to every prayer or even close, and there's no question but that really, really sucky things have happened despite my pleadings otherwise. Clearly, not every prayer is answered. While you may argue that they are answered and sometimes we can't tell, if one of the people involved can't discern the communication, there isn't communication. I don't know why. I think sometimes it's me, and I think sometimes God simply isn't answering.
I don't believe that God controls everything - in fact, I think the essential randomness of physical phenomona and the consequences of every human being having free agency are among the most terrifying things about our mortal existence.
However, I do beleive in God, overwhelmingly, because of the answers to prayers I have recieved, because peace and happiness have come from following gospel principles, and because in the many times when I have felt and do feel the Holy Spirit, it's like Dorothy stepping into Oz - the black and white world explodes into color.
I've felt or heard the Spirit while studying the scriptures, praying, studying chemistry, and witnessing things and events I think the Lord would be proud of.
Oh, I have heard and am well aquainted with all the skeptical arguments. What I believe and know now has come slowly. That I do not struggle now does not mean I never did, but after the struggles came peace. It's like...it's like savings in a bank. I don't always feel the presense of the Lord, but I know that I have, and present silence is bolstered by the remembrance of love and answers. Besides, the sun has always risen again in the morning.
I am LDS, and the pre-existence means a lot to me. I think we chose this - this world. We didn't shape or make the world, but we accepted a mortal life in it. This life is often random and scary, but it isn't the sum of our existence and we are not alone in it.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:So I guess I'm trying to figure out if you can have faith at all if evidence and observation have led you there.
My view is that faith can come into play whenever there is uncertainty. That's because faith essentially acts as a medicine for doubt, and doubt arises from uncertainty.
It is definitely true that uncertainty exists when there is no evidence for your belief, but it is also true that uncertainty exists when there is some evidnece but not complete evidence to prove your belief. For instance, if God were to speak to you, you would have evidence of God's existence - but you might also be uncertain, because it might just mean you are going crazy and hearing things instead.
I believe faith is what we do when we make a leap beyond that uncertainty, so we can act with confidence on beliefs that seem true but might not be true. I think that if you look at stories in the Bible, most faithful figures do receive some sort of evidence - a miracle, hearing God, a burning bush, etc. I think their faith comes from the fact that, rather than doubting that evidence to the point that they fall into inaction, they trust what seems true to them based on what they experienced (that God really is asking them to do something) and are willing to act upon it. They don't blindly pull their beliefs out of thin air - but they are willing to act in some bold ways based only upon evidence that is very very far from clear cut. That is how I view faith, at least.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
For me, it seems easy to change the wording from "God" to "Ice Cream Machine" or whatever. The power of self-confirming bias is really, really strong, and over the course of a lifetime, of course one will encounter numerous amazing events that could be portrayed as miraculous.
It's like the Terry Pratchett comment: It's a miracle when someone's life is saved, but it would be equally miraculious if the road curved just there, there was just the right puddle and just the right engine failure to kill someone. A lot of bad things happen or boring things, and our minds naturally gloss over them. When life gives us something good, positive bias makes that event into something more than it is.
So belief in God appears to me to be based on nothing more than highly subjective emotional, self-confirming incidents of positive bias, the framework for which is built on social programing at a young age. Spiritual feelings can be induced by a variety of physical phenomena. I don't have anything against those who believe, but I certainly don't think it's something logical.
Posts: 3060 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
But then I became religious. It started for me with prayer. I exercised a particle of faith, a wish or hope or crazy hypothesis only, and prayed to a God whom I didn't believe existed. I got back some kind of answer, something that came from outside of me, that wasn't something I made up or invented or wished into being. I was positive of that. Then I kept on trying from that point and got more and more confirmation.
Tatiana, could you explain any more how the answer felt outside of you? Sometimes when I'm with someone I love I get a feeling that I don't feel any other time---sort of a stillness in my chest underneath my breastbone that makes me think I'm blending in to the nature around me. It feels a bit like (and I know this is a silly comparison) going down a big hill in a roller coaster without any fear. But I couldn't say that that feeling came from outside of me.
Posts: 781 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: sA: You'd get a better response to invitations to discussion if your tone and manner indicated that you would show respect and broad-mindedness during such a discussion.
Thank you for your advice. I'm sorry if I failed so far. I'm trying to improve.
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: "God, are you there? Do you still exist?" "No."
Maybe not.
Even if I don’t believe in any deity that can answer prayers, I still think that if a deity that can exists, the time lapse between the prayer and the answer can be long enough as to lead to the conclusion that the answer doesn’t exist. We have a limited life while many deities are eternal (or so I hear).
quote:Even if I don’t believe in any deity that can answer prayers, I still think that if a deity that can exists, the time lapse between the prayer and the answer can be long enough as to lead to the conclusion that the answer doesn’t exist.
Your god doesn't have an ansible?
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Javert: Your god doesn't have an ansible?
Ummm, I don’t think you would call the Meta Entity I have in my belief system a “god”. But it sure doesn’t have such a thing. (I know what it is, having read the Ender series.)
posted
What I don't understand about the idea of God answering prayers is that unless the prayer is answered through direct communication from God to you, how does it not infringe on the free will of others? Or does God only answer prayers by helping you to understand or see something rather than actually causing something to happen?
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Prayers for comfort, peace, wisdom, answers and inspiration can all be answered without infringing on free agency.
A heart can also be softened without infringing on free agency - pointing out a road to someone is not the same as forcing them down it.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think I would continue to believe in God if all I had were logic to prove he exists. To me, the evidence that he is there, and that he is truly creator, savior, and judge, is as plain as day, but that is because I first believed in him, sought after him, and followed him. I personally don't think you can arrive at an enduring belief in God any other way. That assurance that he is there really is personal, ultimately, and doesn't translate well into unassailable, universal proof for the world in general.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
I see that. But as every other translation I've read says that god hardens Pharaoh's heart, I would have to see the original (or have someone explain it to me, as I can't read the language).
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Prayers for comfort, peace, wisdom, answers and inspiration can all be answered without infringing on free agency.
Yes, I assumed that as I would classify those as answers that help you to understand or see something. My question is in regards to whether God can and does answer prayers in other ways beyond that, and whether those answers would violate free will.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tresopax: "the ability of God's existence to explain certain mysteries of the universe"
Uhh tell me one mystery he explains better than saying "a magic goat somewhere far far away does everything" (Same argument as Phanto)
Rivka:
quote: Logic is overrated.
I think this is the most offensive thing I've heard on this entire forum. I'm not joking. Do you also propose, on the same Logic, that illogical things are underrated, that astology should be used to predict the future and that we should treat disease using the four humors approach? (I am disgusted.)
SuminonA: I agree with your critical approach, don't feel like you're betraying my plan here.
Re-statement, new prompt sorta: So everyone here is claiming either "There is evidence" to which they give no support, that miracles and prayers are answered, at least for that person, (Please elaborate with some anecdotal evidence of such miracles).
Can anyone explain their belief with anything better than: It's helpful or that it's obviously true.
Please try to stay on topic and not bicker about the usage of quotation marks or things like that. I think a major part of where I stop accepting the story is when I don't see any proof that the bible can be supported. Anyone up for that? (I'm not putting in a defusing comment in the event that somebody is upset, but I thought about it)
Posts: 655 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Can anyone explain their belief with anything better than: It's helpful or that it's obviously true.
I'm pretty sure that few people are going to feel motivated to do this in a thread that contains this:
quote:I think this is the most offensive thing I've heard on this entire forum. I'm not joking. Do you also propose, on the same Logic, that illogical things are underrated, that astology should be used to predict the future and that we should treat disease using the four humors approach? (I am disgusted.)
quote:So belief in God appears to me to be based on nothing more than highly subjective emotional, self-confirming incidents of positive bias, the framework for which is built on social programing at a young age. Spiritual feelings can be induced by a variety of physical phenomena. I don't have anything against those who believe, but I certainly don't think it's something logical.
Well, emotions always appear subjective from the outside looking in. Even to professionals. Take someone with one psychological problem, and you might get five different doctors giving five different reasons. That does not mean they are valueless.
You're off-base too with your claims of 'self-confirming' and 'programmed through childhood'. Just because the latter is certainly the case for many religious people, and you suspect the former is true of all of them does not make it so, nor does it mean it's the ultimate reason for religious experience.
Just because feelings can be induced by a variety of physical things does not mean that when felt those feelings must have been induced by a tricky trigger (i.e., let's speak plainly: the religious person has taught themselves to believe something crazy).
I have also not met many people, ever, who can think the things you do about a category of people, Phanto, and "have nothing against them". I do not believe you wish anything bad to happen to religious people, but that is not the same thing.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why is it so important to some of you that we choose only one way to experience the universe? Why must we limit ourselves to one tool, one method, for understanding life?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why is it so important to some of you that we choose only one way to experience the universe? Why must we limit ourselves to one tool, one method, for understanding life?
It's not that we're limiting ourselves to one method, Kate.
It's that you're attempting, from our perspectives, to drive a nail with a piece of cake. Or, more accurately, we perceive that a nail needs to be driven; you perceive a need to eat cake. Consequently, your fairy cake meets your immediate cake needs; we, however, do not recognize any need for cake, and cannot understand how you expect to get any nails driven when your hands are covered in frosting.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: It's not that we're limiting ourselves to one method, Kate.
It's that you're attempting, from our perspectives, to drive a nail with a piece of cake. Or, more accurately, we perceive that a nail needs to be driven; you perceive a need to eat cake. Consequently, your fairy cake meets your immediate cake needs; we, however, do not recognize any need for cake, and cannot understand how you expect to get any nails driven when your hands are covered in frosting.
THAT. IS. BRILLIANT. Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Why is it so important to some of you that we choose only one way to experience the universe? Why must we limit ourselves to one tool, one method, for understanding life?
It's not that I can see only one way to perceive the universe. It really isn't. For example I do not think there is any universal truth to the question, "Is yellow a better color then green?"* For some things there is no granite truth that we must carve out.
But in questions such as, is there a God, what does he do, does he have a purpose concerning us, there are unchangeable facts that answer those questions. The factual answers behind them are not open to debate, sometimes a light is on or it's off. We debate what those answers are, the answers themselves do not change.
We may spend all of eternity slowly learning all the nuances of God's plan, but the plan either exists or it does not, there is no middle ground.
This is of course my opinion and you may feel that the universe in large part is designed to serve all our own individual interests and desires. That if a man/woman sees it one way, then it is so. That may be correct, I personally do not think so.
Afterthought, I am not trying to say what you believe for you and then rebuff it, I know it sorta seems that way.
*I may be wrong on this question. Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me: edit: addressing Tom
...and you guys try, from our perspective, to cook breakfast with a hammer.
There is room in my world for bakers and carpenters, both.
Unfortunately we live in a world where some bakers want to throw the carpenters into their ovens, and some carpenters want to beat the bakers with their tools.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:A heart can also be softened without infringing on free agency - pointing out a road to someone is not the same as forcing them down it.
A review of the index in the Book of Mormon once persuaded me that only God can soften the heart. It never speaks of anyone softening their own heart. We can cease to harden our hearts and yield to the Holy Spirit through repentance.
Mostly I checked in to say that if a logical proof of God existed, do you really think you'd be having to ask? We'd either already be aware of it, or wouldn't be passing it out for the asking (the former.)
quote:There is nothing about wanting to eat cake that means we cannot use a hammer when we want to pound a nail. Cake is for eating; hammers are for nails.
Different questions, different needs, different tools. None of which need to exclude the others.
A problem arises if people see all the great things built by pounding nails with hammers and then conclude that anything hammers can't do must not be important. Then they might either starve, or attempt to eat hammers... neither of which is good.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:A review of the index in the Book of Mormon once persuaded me that only God can soften the heart. It never speaks of anyone softening their own heart.
I don't agree with this.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
incidentally, how do we get from "there is no empirical proof of this" to "there is no reason to believe it"?
I have many reasons to believe the Cowboys will smash the Giants on Sunday, but I certainly can't prove it and many people, perhaps even a majority, would disagree with me.
The world does not function on, nor does it wait for, logical explanation. Sometimes (that is to say, "always") you have to learn the best you can and make a call based on what you know.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The misconception that it has to gbe one or the other. The idea that we need to take sides, that one person can't both eat cake and use a hammer depending on what he wants to accomplish.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:A review of the index in the Book of Mormon once persuaded me that only God can soften the heart. It never speaks of anyone softening their own heart.
I don't agree with this.
It's textually based. I look forward to your counterexamples.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't doubt that the language skews it that way, but your theological conclusion - that people cannot decide to soften their own hearts - is unwarranted and misleading.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: The misconception that it has to gbe one or the other. The idea that we need to take sides, that one person can't both eat cake and use a hammer depending on what he wants to accomplish.
Depending on what we're talking about, as I may have lost something in this otherwise brilliant metaphor, pounding hammers could potentially eliminate the need to eat cake, and vice versa.
OK...the metaphor has officially broken down.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Alma 32:15-16 seem to say you can soften your own heart, and kind of bears out one good response to the topic of this thread, asking why you would believe in God.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's one example of someone softening their own heart, but it's Laman and Lemuel, and as you know, that was seldom sincere for long.. Search resultsPosts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is more than one way to state the concept. Drawing theological conclusions after a search for exactly one way to state the concept produces misleading results.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Humbling oneself and repenting is what I'm talking about. I was actually thinking about that exact quote earlier in the thread. I had seen it recently but couldn't remember where. I mean, that's a great chapter and I have thought of it a lot this month, but the primacy of humility and repentance before warm and fuzzy feelings was "new" for me at this time.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Javert: pounding hammers could potentially eliminate the need to eat cake, and vice versa.
OK...the metaphor has officially broken down.
Particularly if the thing you are pounding is the head of a cake-eater... metaphor restored?
In all seriousness... I think Tom chose "cake" rather deliberately in that it's not a need but a want, and mostly a good thing, but can be overindulged. Is that accurate of me, Tom?
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me: edit: addressing Tom
...and you guys try, from our perspective, to cook breakfast with a hammer.
There is room in my world for bakers and carpenters, both.
Unfortunately we live in a world where some bakers want to throw the carpenters into their ovens, and some carpenters want to beat the bakers with their tools.
This is indeed the problem. The way to address it is not by arguing about who what kind of cake is best for hanging sheetrock or saying that eating is stupid.
Some of us think that the hammering would go better if we took some nourishment, others may have only had really bad cake or may just not be "cake people" and so would rather hammer on an empty stomach - and do just fine.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The knowledge that all belief is built on “observation and evidence” may be your point, but I know for a fact that it is not the case. Blind faith is by definition outside your “point”.
My point is that even though religious faith is different from other sorts of belief, that doesn't make it blind faith. It is very different from (for instance) the scientific method, but that doesn't mean it isn't also based on evidence and observation.
If your belief is really based on evidence and observation, then you should be able to give a list of observations and evidence that would falsify your belief.
If you can't, then it's not.
The fact is, history shows us time and time again that "accept the truth of your idea, then look for evidence" just doesn't work. 99 times out of a hundred, the idea has flaws, because people make mistakes, but people are simply lousy at accepting that their ideas are wrong in light of conflicting evidence, so they'll stick to their wrong idea, rather than drop it and change to a righter one. And when you couple emotional attachment to the idea, it becomes darn near impossible for a person to stop believing the wrong thing.
So if someone is trying to convince others that the smart thing to do when faced with a dearth of evidence is to make things up and believe in them faithfully, well, history shows that's simply a terrible way of doing things. There's just no way around that.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Good one, kate.![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
