Atheism?

[DarthMonk]

One thing that has always bothered me about believers - no evidence they can share. It's always some personal epiphany.

Can you define what you mean when you say "evidence"? Would an argument from reason drawing on common experience count?"

If not, are you saying such arguments are strictly "personal epiphanies"?

Common experience could be evidence for something. I have not yet had a believer give me a good answer to the questions I posed using common experience + reason to give anything remotely close to a proof. Personal epiphanies are "cosmic" experiences that are not shared. They are personal and as such are not shared evidnece.

An earlier poster mentioned one as HIS "evidence."

DarthMonk

I assume you are referring to me with this statement.

I probably was.

If you'd like, I will recount this experience for you, but as I said I have no way of proving to you that it happened, so it will be unsatisfying to anyone but me that it is proof of God's existence.

Exactly. Don't bother. (not trying to be snide)

Also, this was not an epiphany for me, as I have always believed in the existence of God

.... always????!!!! from your first self-conscious thought????!!! I doubt it.

, for as long as I can remember, and have seen evidence of his existence throughout my life before this experience.

I'd probably call the first evidence you took that way a personal epiphany based on "evidence" you can't really share since no one else could really experience it too.

DarthMonk

[DarthMonk]

I'd go further than that and say science gives us demonstrations that God exists.

Yeah, right. I know I didn't just make an argument but I sure haven't seen a sound one yet ... and sound ain't the same thing as valid and an argument certainly is not a proof or ... ahem .... a demonstration.

I feel like you have used the word "sound" when "valid" was better since a valid argument can have perfect reasoniing but not be sound as a premise may not be true (which is why, I suppose, you wrote "if true" which .... well, I think you get it).

I also feel like you have used the word "demonstratons" where "arguments" was more appropriate.

Science has never done what you say, i.e., give a demonstration that god exists. Ever ... IMHO.

BTW - geometry is both inductive and deductive. I'd also say sicence is much more about the process involved in assembling the knowledge than it is about the body of knowledge itself (which keeps changing by the way due to the process).

One thing I will say about god assuming s/he exists: God is rational. The universe makes sense. It has to in order to exist.

Here's a queston:

Assuming god exists did s/he decide on the laws of physics or is s/he constrained by them?

DarthMonk

[Deadskins]

Also, this was not an epiphany for me, as I have always believed in the existence of God

.... always????!!!! from your first self-conscious thought????!!! I doubt it.

Having split this quote, your rebuttal seems overtly snide and self-serving.

, for as long as I can remember, and have seen evidence of his existence throughout my life before this experience.

I'd probably call the first evidence you took that way a personal epiphany based on "evidence" you can't really share since no one else could really experience it too.

My father is an Episcopal priest. Is it too far fetched for you to believe that I was raised from birth with an understanding of God's presence in my life? There simply was no epiphany, just further confirmation that His existence is real.

[Deadskins]

I'd go further than that and say science gives us demonstrations that God exists.

Yeah, right. I know I didn't just make an argument but I sure haven't seen a sound one yet ... and sound ain't the same thing as valid and an argument certainly is not a proof or ... ahem .... a demonstration.

I feel like you have used the word "sound" when "valid" was better since a valid argument can have perfect reasoniing but not be sound as a premise may not be true (which is why, I suppose, you wrote "if true" which .... well, I think you get it).

Where exactly did IB use the word "sound" in that quote?

Here's a queston:

Assuming god exists did s/he decide on the laws of physics or is s/he constrained by them?

Those don't necessarily have to be mutually exclusive choices.

Here's one for you:
Assuming someone believes in God, are they also supposed to know God's mind and His essence?

[Irn-Bru]

I'd go further than that and say science gives us demonstrations that God exists.

Yeah, right. I know I didn't just make an argument but I sure haven't seen a sound one yet ... and sound ain't the same thing as valid and an argument certainly is not a proof or ... ahem .... a demonstration.

I feel like you have used the word "sound" when "valid" was better since a valid argument can have perfect reasoniing but not be sound as a premise may not be true (which is why, I suppose, you wrote "if true" which .... well, I think you get it).

I was being careful with my words, so I didn't say "sound" when I really meant "valid."

I think there are valid and invalid arguments for God's existence. Of the valid ones, some proceed from principles that are manifestly true. Since their premises are manifestly true, and the argument form is valid, then I adhere to the conclusion. And not just in an abstract way, where I identify the argument as merely a "valid" argument, but a sound one.

Science has never done what you say, i.e., give a demonstration that god exists. Ever ... IMHO.

I think Aquinas and Aristotle manage it. (cville can rejoice that the link above is to a text that's only a couple of pages long.)

You said above that common experience can count as evidence. Aquinas's arguments in this section (particularly his "first" and "third" ways) draw on abstractions of conceptual truths from things everyone assents to. Therefore, whether or not one ends up agreeing with it, it cannot be denied that his is an argument from evidence.

Some people might grant everything I've just said but still claim this method doesn't really count as being scientific. I disagree with that view.

BTW - geometry is both inductive and deductive.

You need induction to get to its first principles. Maybe there's some other aspect of the science I'm not currently aware of that works inductively. But the vast majority of the body of the science is established deductively. (Of course, we often learn geometry inductively, which is something else entirely.)

I'd also say sicence is much more about the process involved in assembling the knowledge than it is about the body of knowledge itself (which keeps changing by the way due to the process).

I agree. The day-to-day work is primarily one of assembling data. Too much theorizing distances the scientist from reality. But Aristotle's discussion of science is talking about the essence of its ability to convey truth, and where that truth comes from. On that account it can't be primarily about the process of assembling data — that leads us to the incoherent notion that the data contains the theory.

One thing I will say about god assuming s/he exists: God is rational. The universe makes sense. It has to in order to exist.

Here's a queston:

Assuming god exists did s/he decide on the laws of physics or is s/he constrained by them?

If God could have made the universe according to different laws of physics, I'm not sure we (in this universe) are capable of conceptualizing what they could be. Or perhaps it's the case that God could not have made the universe according to different physical laws. In either case, I think (perhaps!) I agree with Wittgenstein who says "in order to be able to draw a limit to thought, we should have to find both sides of the limit thinkable (i.e. we should have to be able to think what cannot be thought)." There's more to this issue than asking, e.g., if God could make a square circle or create a rock so big he couldn't lift it, but in the end the answer might be the same.

I don't know enough to give a more complete answer.

[welch]

Have to admit I love that part of Summa Th. where Aquinas proves the existence of God.

Not impressed by the "perfect being must have existence if perfect" argument, but one or two others are powerful.

However, I feel it's a matter of belief in things unseen and beyond ability of human mind.

Interesting discussion (and a long one) in Borden Parker Bowne's "Metaphysics". [Bowne taught ES Brightman, who taught Harold DeWolf; Brightman, DeWolf, Walter Muelder, and other "Boston Personalist" philosopher/theologians taught ML King...Bowne is same generation, and friend of, William James]

I think Bowne is saying that there are some ultimates that you can neither prove nor disprove. Science -- experiment, evidence, logic -- gets silly when it plays around cosmology and above.

[Irn-Bru]

Not impressed by the "perfect being must have existence if perfect" argument, but one or two others are powerful.

Neither was Aquinas . He rejects Anselm's argument, saying it begs the question.

I never know where to come down on Anselm's proof. Some days I think it works, other days not. I do think it has more currency than it is often credited with.

[welch]

Not impressed by the "perfect being must have existence if perfect" argument, but one or two others are powerful.

Neither was Aquinas . He rejects Anselm's argument, saying it begs the question.

I never know where to come down on Anselm's proof. Some days I think it works, other days not. I do think it has more currency than it is often credited with.

Always seemed more verbal than persuasive...which, I think, is why Aquinas puts it first. The arguments seem to line up from weakest to strongest.

[DarthMonk]

[If that distinction is granted, my answer should be fairly clear. Science gives us demonstrations of God's existence, in that we can form sound arguments from first principles that (if true) would lead us to that conclusion. These arguments come from conceptual truths we can deduce from the nature/definition of being. (And that's typically where eyes start to glaze over . . .)

This is where you used the word "sound."

BTW - no one has convinced me either way yet. And if you are the one whose dad is a priest (not being snide at all here) then I automatically am very skeptical of arguments from reason since you were most likely indoctrinated from day 1.

I have found most such "arguments" to be very after-the-fact contivances that essentially assume the truth of the thing that is being "proven."

You clearly would not fit into my "most people" generalization concerning personal epiphanies being used as "evidence" and so forth.

God may exist. I firmly believe that anyone who says "I KNOW he does" (or does not) is essentially being dishonest.

Darth (agnostic) Monk

PS - Let us pray for victory over the Cowgirls this weekend. Amen.

PPS - Even geometries (there are many self-consistent types) have unprovable verities. I strongly suspect either the existence of God or the non-exitence of God is an unprovable verity.

[Redskin in Canada]

God may exist. I firmly believe that anyone who says "I KNOW he does" (or does not) is essentially being dishonest.

Interesting view. I disagree, of course.

An HONEST opinion and/or belief has nothing to do with its truth value. HONEST opinions and/or beliefs can be wrong and still be honest. Honesty is not derived from the truth value of a belief but the means followed to arrive to it.

If the premises are accepted in all honesty and the logic is flawless, the conclusion in either case is HONEST. Honesty is an ethical value, not a logical proposition.

Dishonesty, on the other hand, would only be called upon from an intellectual perspective if a person accepts false premises knowingly or that person knowingly followed a flawed logical argument.

PPS - Even geometries (there are many self-consistent types) have unprovable verities. I strongly suspect either the existence of God or the non-existence of God is an unprovable verity.

If this was as simple as an exercise on non-Euclidean geometries only, the analogy might be valid. It is not. The way to the discovery of God or its denial has many more paths than those described in lemmas and theorems postulated in mathematics (whether capable to be proven or not).

Call me dishonest if you might but a good number of episodes in time and place in my life can only be attributed to the existence of God. Luck and chance would never ever in my wildest dreams be able to combine with what's happened to me.

Am I wrong? Maybe. Am I dishonest, hell no. I would be dishonest not to accept the facts and think of them as random luck (or lack of it at times).

[tribeofjudah]

THE TRUTH IS STILL THE TRUTH....whether we believe it or not........!!!

Faith and Belief in GOD is a choice and MANY people have SEEN GOD's providence and manifestation in their lives.....ESPECIALLY ME...!!!

RIC seems to have "seen" GOD work in his life too.....

[Irn-Bru]

[If that distinction is granted, my answer should be fairly clear. Science gives us demonstrations of God's existence, in that we can form sound arguments from first principles that (if true) would lead us to that conclusion. These arguments come from conceptual truths we can deduce from the nature/definition of being. (And that's typically where eyes start to glaze over . . .)

This is where you used the word "sound."

Right. I said "sound" because I meant "sound."

BTW - no one has convinced me either way yet. And if you are the one whose dad is a priest (not being snide at all here) then I automatically am very skeptical of arguments from reason since you were most likely indoctrinated from day 1.

You're thinking of JSPB; my dad is not a priest.

But it doesn't really matter, as this is a bad argument. Indoctrination can affect someone's subjective state of mind such that they can't make or understand a good argument, but it cannot affect the reasonableness of an argument itself. So a person who was raised in a religious home is capable, on account of their capacity for reason, of offering good or bad arguments for or against the idea of God. It's a disservice to yourself and to those you are speaking with to rule out a priori any argument coming from someone raised in a religion. (In fact, your bias here may be at least part of the reason you believe you've never seen a good argument for the existence or nonexistence of God. If you really mean what you say here, you are prematurely casting off an enormous body/history of thought.)

God may exist. I firmly believe that anyone who says "I KNOW he does" (or does not) is essentially being dishonest.

Let me make sure I understand your argument here: because you have not seen enough evidence one way or the other, therefore anyone who thinks they have is lying?

[DarthMonk]

Lumping you and others together - forgive me.

Misconstruing my words.

Opinions should not be stated as "I KNOW." They should be "I THINK."

I maintain that anyone who claims they KNOW either way is essentially being intellectually dishonest.

I laugh at the claims of KNOWLEDGE and and PROOF in this thread. They are unnecessary overstatements.

DarthMonk

[If that distinction is granted, my answer should be fairly clear. Science gives us demonstrations of God's existence, in that we can form sound arguments from first principles that (if true) would lead us to that conclusion. These arguments come from conceptual truths we can deduce from the nature/definition of being. (And that's typically where eyes start to glaze over . . .)

This is where you used the word "sound."

Right. I said "sound" because I meant "sound."

BTW - no one has convinced me either way yet. And if you are the one whose dad is a priest (not being snide at all here) then I automatically am very skeptical of arguments from reason since you were most likely indoctrinated from day 1.

You're thinking of JSPB; my dad is not a priest.

But it doesn't really matter, as this is a bad argument. Indoctrination can affect someone's subjective state of mind such that they can't make or understand a good argument, but it cannot affect the reasonableness of an argument itself. So a person who was raised in a religious home is capable, on account of their capacity for reason, of offering good or bad arguments for or against the idea of God. It's a disservice to yourself and to those you are speaking with to rule out a priori any argument coming from someone raised in a religion. (In fact, your bias here may be at least part of the reason you believe you've never seen a good argument for the existence or nonexistence of God. If you really mean what you say here, you are prematurely casting off an enormous body/history of thought.)

God may exist. I firmly believe that anyone who says "I KNOW he does" (or does not) is essentially being dishonest.

Let me make sure I understand your argument here: because you have not seen enough evidence one way or the other, therefore anyone who thinks they have is lying?

[Irn-Bru]

Can you show me where I misconstrue your words? It's not my intention to do so.

[DarthMonk]

Dear Redskin au Canada and Irn-Bru:

More time now. Hope you read this. This one is for RiC. I'll write one later for I-B. Time to take down the Cowgirls.


1)

God may exist. I firmly believe that anyone who says "I KNOW he does" (or does not) is essentially being dishonest.

Interesting view. I disagree, of course.

I agree with what you say below. Apparently you are disagreeing with my use of the word dishonest. Please allow me to rephrase. I think anyone who says "I KNOW ..." is "fooling himself." A commnon way to express this thought is with the phrase "intellectual dishonesty." My apologies. I am not trying to insinuate that you or someone else is a liar.

An HONEST opinion and/or belief has nothing to do with its truth value. HONEST opinions and/or beliefs can be wrong and still be honest. Honesty is not derived from the truth value of a belief but the means followed to arrive to it.

If the premises are accepted in all honesty and the logic is flawless, the conclusion in either case is HONEST. Honesty is an ethical value, not a logical proposition.

Dishonesty, on the other hand, would only be called upon from an intellectual perspective if a person accepts false premises knowingly or that person knowingly followed a flawed logical argument.

2)

PPS - Even geometries (there are many self-consistent types) have unprovable verities. I strongly suspect either the existence of God or the non-existence of God is an unprovable verity.

If this was as simple as an exercise on non-Euclidean geometries only, the analogy might be valid. It is not. The way to the discovery of God or its denial has many more paths than those described in lemmas and theorems postulated in mathematics (whether capable to be proven or not).

It actually may be simpler than any unprovable geometric verity, Euclidean or otherwise. It may simply be the case that God exists (or not) and that man cannot prove the fact.


3)

Call me dishonest if you might but a good number of episodes in time and place in my life can only be attributed (my bolding of your words) to the existence of God. Luck and chance would never ever in my wildest dreams be able to combine with what's happened to me.

I think it is likely (based on my experience) that this is an example (the bolded words) of you fooling yourself. You seem to back off later when you say "Maybe."


4)

Am I wrong? Maybe.

This is what I'd call intellectual honesty. It's the ability and willingness to differentiate between one's opinions and proven fact. You seem to be saying that you may be wrong about the existence of God. I call that intellectual honesty. Bravo.


5)

Am I dishonest, hell no. I would be dishonest not to accept the facts and think of them as random luck (or lack of it at times).

I think we agree as to your honesty and that the problem there was one of semantics. Again, my apologies. no intent to label anyone as a liar.


DarthMonk

[Redskin in Canada]

I agree with what you say below. Apparently you are disagreeing with my use of the word dishonest. Please allow me to rephrase. I think anyone who says "I KNOW ..." is "fooling himself." A commnon way to express this thought is with the phrase "intellectual dishonesty." My apologies. I am not trying to insinuate that you or someone else is a liar.

We still disagree. Read the my post:

Intellectual dishonesty only is called upon when a person starts KNOWINGLY with wrong premises and/or follows a KNOWINGLY wrong logical argument.

A person can be VERY WRONG and still be intellectually honest. As opoposed to the arguments made, for example, by numeroous used car salesmen and politicians of the "highest caliber" all over the world.

It actually may be simpler than any unprovable geometric verity, Euclidean or otherwise. It may simply be the case that God exists (or not) and that man cannot prove the fact.

The existence of God is not entirely without proof in theology and philosophy (with particularly interesting notions in epistemology, ontology and logic). Sure, we cannot bring God to a personal introduction to a social reception but there are a number of arguments proposed which do not leave this argument as a matter of faith only.

I think it is likely (based on my experience) that this is an example (the bolded words) of you fooling yourself. You seem to back off later when you say "Maybe."

ORDER is one of the strongest arguments in my mind and personal experience, which lead an honest person to arrive at the conclusion that I have.

This is what I'd call intellectual honesty. It's the ability and willingness to differentiate between one's opinions and proven fact. You seem to be saying that you may be wrong about the existence of God. I call that intellectual honesty. Bravo.

I BELIEVE the evidence provided in my life. Every single deep personal analysis that I have made points me at in that direction.

I realise that PROOF is not evident and life, faith and genuine search for truth are required to follow this path.

I think we agree as to your honesty and that the problem there was one of semantics. Again, my apologies. no intent to label anyone as a liar.

It is not only that a person who believes that God EXISTS OR NOT is not a LIAR. They ARE, BOTH OF THEM, intellectually honest if they have followed a path based on honestly believed premnises felt to be TRUE and their logical argument is not flawed KNOWINGLY.

Look brother, your attitude is a very HEALTHY one. NIHILISM is not new in philosophy, it goes back all the way back to classic Greece in Gorgias and Pyrro and travels through modern existentialism with Sartre and others in the 20th century only to arrive to the 21st century in the form of post-modern nihilism.

It only takes a modest amount of skepticisim to negate quite a great deal of information. To put it in a way that you might like: Feel as if mathematics had to proceed everywhere without any axioms.

Only problem is: IF (and this is a very conditional proposition) God does exist, what a miserable missed opportunity not to believe and praise Him would my life represent?

IF (along the same lines) God dos NOT exist, I missed nothing.

See? Both the principal and the alternative propositions work for me.

[Deadskins]

I think anyone who says "I KNOW ..." is "fooling himself."

OK, so working off the assumption that these people existed, would Moses, Abraham, Lot, or Jesus have been fooling themselves if they said they KNEW God exists? If you are intellectually honest, you would have to answer "No" to to this question. Can I or anyone else prove these people existed or had contact with an actual God? No, but that still doesn't negate the fact that if they did, they could say with all intellectual honesty that they KNEW, not thought, that there was a God, and were not fooling themselves into expressing an opinion as fact. Similarly, I know that there is a God and he has been very active in my life. Like RiC and others here, I have seen many great works that would make me believe in God's existence, but one experience gave "me" actual proof.

In November of 2001, my mother was on her deathbed, having battled cancer for several years. I was up late one night watching a video. When it finished, I got up to go upstairs to bed. Suddenly, I heard my mother's voice calling to me. I did not hear her with my ears, but rather in my head. The power of the experience drove me to one knee. She told me that God was calling her to Him, and that she could no longer live with the pain. She told me she loved me and said goodbye, and then she was gone. I was in tears, and I prayed for God to end her suffering. Mind you, I was in Atlanta, and she was on the coast of North Carolina, 500 miles away. For the next two hours, I stayed awake waiting for a call from my father telling me of her passing, before I came to the realization that this late at night, that call would not come until morning. I went to bed, and when, in the morning, the call from my father did come, I said only "I know."

To me, this is proof of God's existence. I can say with all certainty that, yes, there definitely is a God. Now, at the same time, there is no way for me to prove this experience actually happened, to anyone else. So, unless God has revealed Himself to you personally, I can understand how someone could be skeptical. But, personally, I KNOW God exists, and am not fooling myself or being intellectually dishonest.

[Red_One43]

That was a very moving story that Deadskins posted about his mother's passing.

Today, I am reminded of my parents story of losing their first born.

On January 4, 1958, a healthy baby girl was born to my parents. During the night, I Dad, a devout Catholic, was awakened during the night and sought the priest who was on duty at the hospital. He wanted he daughter baptised immediately. The priest pleaded with my father that there was no reason because the baby was competely healthy. The baptism could wait until the morning, but my father persisted and the priest gave in and baptized the baby that night. In the morning, my parents' baby girl was dead. My Dad believes that it was God who woke him in the night to have their baby, my sister, baptized.

What's my take? Knowing that my parents are devout Catholics and believe in everything just about everything the church teaches (yes, we have large families), I don't think that my parents could have functioned in life had they not baptized my sister. I believe that it was a gift from God, that woke my father. I don't believe that his happening validates my father and mother's Catholic faith, but was simply a gift to them for whatever reason.

Though I believe in a personal God, this occurance doesn't directly prove to me that there is a God. I believe that my Dad's intuition can be explained other ways. Do I believe it God was responsible for my Dad summoning the Chaplain? Yes, but is because I believe. There is no rational reason why I believe that God exists. I just simply do. Like almost everybody, I have had pain and suffering in my life, but I never stop believing in God and I never expect him to deliver me from evil, though I do ask.

I can never argue with someone that they should believe in God or that they shouldn't. To me, it doesn't matter what another person believes. I am all for discussing though. I am all for hearing and reading stories of faith like Deadskins posted, but I am all for hearing stories of nonfaith. I think that we can learn from each other in honest discussion.

Deadskins, thanks for posting your story and sharing what it meant to you. It has helped me in reflecting on my own beliefs. I believe that
God gave you a gift that night and since it has strengthened yuor faith, he was a very powerful gift indeed.

Darthmonk, you sound like a deep thinker and since you raise religious questions on the boards, I believe that you are aware that a transcendent reality does exist - you might not believe it exists, but from what you write, my take is that you are very aware that transcendent reality does exist. Take off the lenses of the religious world and see the reality that you know is there. I believe that this reality is God, but that doesn't mean that my perception is correct for others. Who has the monopoly on spiritual truth?

To the Atheists and Agnostics - there is nothing wrong witha believe in "soul sleep" in my book. That ain't me, but who am I to knock someone for believing that you live, die and that's it. Sounds pretty rational.

So how shall we live? Do unto others as you would have others do unto you - the most powerful witness on earth is just that - Don't have to have religion to do it.

[Cappster]

I think anyone who says "I KNOW ..." is "fooling himself."

OK, so working off the assumption that these people existed, would Moses, Abraham, Lot, or Jesus have been fooling themselves if they said they KNEW God exists? If you are intellectually honest, you would have to answer "No" to to this question. Can I or anyone else prove these people existed or had contact with an actual God? No, but that still doesn't negate the fact that if they did, they could say with all intellectual honesty that they KNEW, not thought, that there was a God, and were not fooling themselves into expressing an opinion as fact. Similarly, I know that there is a God and he has been very active in my life. Like RiC and others here, I have seen many great works that would make me believe in God's existence, but one experience gave "me" actual proof.

In November of 2001, my mother was on her deathbed, having battled cancer for several years. I was up late one night watching a video. When it finished, I got up to go upstairs to bed. Suddenly, I heard my mother's voice calling to me. I did not hear her with my ears, but rather in my head. The power of the experience drove me to one knee. She told me that God was calling her to Him, and that she could no longer live with the pain. She told me she loved me and said goodbye, and then she was gone. I was in tears, and I prayed for God to end her suffering. Mind you, I was in Atlanta, and she was on the coast of North Carolina, 500 miles away. For the next two hours, I stayed awake waiting for a call from my father telling me of her passing, before I came to the realization that this late at night, that call would not come until morning. I went to bed, and when, in the morning, the call from my father did come, I said only "I know."

To me, this is proof of God's existence. I can say with all certainty that, yes, there definitely is a God. Now, at the same time, there is no way for me to prove this experience actually happened, to anyone else. So, unless God has revealed Himself to you personally, I can understand how someone could be skeptical. But, personally, I KNOW God exists, and am not fooling myself or being intellectually dishonest.

That is a touching story, Deadskins and you are right in that there is no way to prove that it happened other than knowing what you experienced. All I want from those who claim that God exists is to provide quantifiable evidence that said deity does exist. Something that can be measured, tested, and proven to be true. If God does exist, I would like to know why, if he is omnipotent and omniscient, does he let children starve, get raped, and suffer atrocities when he could prevent those things from happening.

[Deadskins]

All I want from those who claim that God exists is to provide quantifiable evidence that said deity does exist. Something that can be measured, tested, and proven to be true.

I'm sorry, but you will never get that. That's why it's called "faith."

[KazooSkinsFan]

That is a touching story, Deadskins and you are right in that there is no way to prove that it happened other than knowing what you experienced

My grandmother died shortly after I started college. Tough time, first time moving away from home and all. I was very close to her. I had the most surreal experience which started when I was sleeping, but then I was awake. She was sitting in her chair like she always did. We both knew she was dead, it wasn't necessary to discuss it. She didn't give me a message or anything, she just wanted to make sure I was OK. Then I "woke" which was more really that it just ended and I was in my bed, not sitting with her.

I didn't mention that to anyone, but I was talking to my sister shortly after that, and she described the exact same experience. Wow, I was blown away. Then right after that, my mother brought up the exact same experience. In all cases the experience was the same and so was the message, she's just moving on, but she wanted to be sure we are all OK first.

All I want from those who claim that God exists is to provide quantifiable evidence that said deity does exist

God had proven his existence to me all through my life, or there has just been one endless coincidence after another. I hate religion, but I have no doubt about the existence of God. God isn't there as a Genie to grant my wishes, but he's been there every step of the way to keep pushing me without crushing me. If you open your heart to seeing God that way, you will find him. If you don't, you won't. That's what it comes down to. But not finding him doesn't mean he's not there. Or that he's not helping you. But you will get more out of life if you make it a two way deal.

[Cappster]

All I want from those who claim that God exists is to provide quantifiable evidence that said deity does exist. Something that can be measured, tested, and proven to be true.

I'm sorry, but you will never get that. That's why it's called "faith."

Wouldn't it be easier for *God* to not play the charades game and just come out and say "I am he so worship me?" Are we just pawns on a chess board that said deity effs with and chooses to make our lives harder than what it has to be? To me, it seems that God is rather wicked by allowing the atrocities of this world happen to so many innocent people.

[Cappster]

That is a touching story, Deadskins and you are right in that there is no way to prove that it happened other than knowing what you experienced

My grandmother died shortly after I started college. Tough time, first time moving away from home and all. I was very close to her. I had the most surreal experience which started when I was sleeping, but then I was awake. She was sitting in her chair like she always did. We both knew she was dead, it wasn't necessary to discuss it. She didn't give me a message or anything, she just wanted to make sure I was OK. Then I "woke" which was more really that it just ended and I was in my bed, not sitting with her.

I didn't mention that to anyone, but I was talking to my sister shortly after that, and she described the exact same experience. Wow, I was blown away. Then right after that, my mother brought up the exact same experience. In all cases the experience was the same and so was the message, she's just moving on, but she wanted to be sure we are all OK first.

All I want from those who claim that God exists is to provide quantifiable evidence that said deity does exist

God had proven his existence to me all through my life, or there has just been one endless coincidence after another. I hate religion, but I have no doubt about the existence of God. God isn't there as a Genie to grant my wishes, but he's been there every step of the way to keep pushing me without crushing me. If you open your heart to seeing God that way, you will find him. If you don't, you won't. That's what it comes down to. But not finding him doesn't mean he's not there. Or that he's not helping you. But you will get more out of life if you make it a two way deal.

I am open to finding God if God does exist. I just haven't seen anything to where I conclusively say that he/she/it does exist. It seems to me the whole "having faith" belief is a fallacy without having substantial proof and cannot be proven (thus far) scientifically.

[Deadskins]

All I want from those who claim that God exists is to provide quantifiable evidence that said deity does exist. Something that can be measured, tested, and proven to be true.

I'm sorry, but you will never get that. That's why it's called "faith."

Wouldn't it be easier for *God* to not play the charades game and just come out and say "I am he so worship me?"

He's done that several times, if you believe the Bible. But, I don't pretend to know the mind of God, or why He does things the way He does. I suspect that will be made clear after you die.

[Cappster]

All I want from those who claim that God exists is to provide quantifiable evidence that said deity does exist. Something that can be measured, tested, and proven to be true.

I'm sorry, but you will never get that. That's why it's called "faith."

Wouldn't it be easier for *God* to not play the charades game and just come out and say "I am he so worship me?"

He's done that several times, if you believe the Bible. But, I don't pretend to know the mind of God, or why He does things the way He does. I suspect that will be made clear after you die.

I do not believe the Bible. And why doesn't he show himself to more than one person at a time? And is the Christian God the Same as the Muslim and/or Zionist? Again, the true God, whoever that may be, could clear up the confusion rather easily yet chooses not to do so. It doesn't make logical sense to me.