Is the statement "god exists" true?

[_Jason Bourne]

Here is the problem.

Listen to what you say to the believer.

Belief in God is old, give up your imaginary friend, it is false comfort, what you/they believe is false.

Look, be an atheist if you wish. I am fine with that.

But do not pretend that you really know whether or not there is a God.

You don't so don't speak in absolutes. That is really what I find irritating.

You may be right, you may be wrong, but you do not know.

There were plenty of things that were out there, and still are, that we have not discovered nor proven or at one time were that way. The power of the atom is recent knowledge but that power was still there before that. When we did not know how to detect and electron it was still there. When he did not understand how gravity works it was still there. The list of what was there that we have only found out about in the past 100 years is endless.

This may or may not be the case for God.

I am ok stating that I cannot give you hard empirical evidence for God. But don't pretend you know absolutes in this regards either.

[_Who Knows]

Here is the problem.

Listen to what you say to the believer.

Belief in God is old, give up your imaginary friend, it is false comfort, what you/they believe is false.

Look, be an atheist if you wish. I am fine with that.

But do not pretend that you really know whether or not there is a God.

You don't so don't speak in absolutes. That is really what I find irritating.

You may be right, you may be wrong, but you do not know.

There were plenty of things that were out there, and still are, that we have not discovered nor proven or at one time were that way. The power of the atom is recent knowledge but that power was still there before that. When we did not know how to detect and electron it was still there. When he did not understand how gravity works it was still there. The list of what was there that we have only found out about in the past 100 years is endless.

This may or may not be the case for God.

I am ok stating that I cannot give you hard empirical evidence for God. But don't pretend you know absolutes in this regards either.

I think if LDS backed off of their 'true knowledge / absolute' claims, then so would the critics.

[_barrelomonkeys]

I don't take it personally if someone takes comfort in something that's false. On the other hand, I don't respect that, and I don't think it's anything people ought to strive for. And I do take offense when these same people attempt to force their false comfort on me, and to spread it around.

Do I get offended when someone has a cold? No, but I do get offended when that person who has the cold comes to the office to work, and then comes over to talk to me and coughs in my face. They might think having a cold is the most wonderful thing in the world, and that I ought to want to have it too, but that still will upset me, because I see it for what it is: an infectious disease which I'd rather not have.

Sethbag, I agree with you about people talking to you about it. I live in the Bible belt. I am always asked about my belief in Jesus, even on job interviews and this is something I am faced with on a continual basis. I do understand that part of their faith is to talk about their faith though. I don't take offense to it, it does make me uncomfortable.

A woman sat on my front porch the other day and whipped out an old Bible (little sticky notes sticking out of it here and there) and started reading to me from it. I was so terribly uncomfortable. I try to avoid these people like the plague. I just don't see the need to ridicule them. I especially am not comfortable with the thought that I would tell them they believe in a lie and they must pull back the curtains.

[_dartagnan]

The fact is the only thing we humans know or perceive is transmitted to us through our senses. Most of us learned in grade school that there are five main senses (taste, feel, hear, sight, smell) but science is entertaining the possibility of others senses. There remains the possibility of perception to a supernatural world which mercury would no doubt laugh at as magical and hokey. However, there is considerable evidence to support this. Bonafide scientists have been studying the paranormal for years and have been performing tests and experiments in prestigious universities over the past century.

Mercury would tell me I must reject the existence of ESP since it has not been explained by science. Personally, I need no scientist to tell me ESP exists because I grew up watching my grandmother demonstrate it. It drove her nuts because she had no control over it. When my father had a boating accident and was stranded on a dune off the coast of Savannah, she knew about it instantly and called the coast guard. When her eldest son died while sleeping on a couch, she knew. There were more dramatic stories I could tell you which involved me, but the point here is that there is plenty truth out there that science has yet to explain. Humans have the ability to perceive the supernatural. Does this mean some people can perceive the existence of God while others cannot? Perhaps. Could this have something to do with the God gene? Perhaps. But none of this is testable, in spite of the evidence. ESP moments are not by design and most supernatural experiences are not planned.

Further, why do so many people who die and come back to life, experience the vision of a white light? Well, atheists will insist it has to do with electrons firing violently as the brain goes without oxygen, but this is not something they can prove. It is not something they can verify. It is not something they can test and it goes contrary to the feeling of peace illustrated in the thousands of testimonies. The atheist reasoning is based on their own anti-theist worldview in which an afterlife cannot exist. The human brain remains the most mysterious object in the universe, and science is told us oh so little about it.

The point here is that a supernatural world exists. I know it exists. Millions of people know it exists. Their evidence is often personal experience. I don’t need a scientist with his test tubes and microscope to confirm its existence for me. And atheists like mercury can howl at the moon all he wants, because there is nothing he can say to convince me and others, otherwise. This has nothing to do with our gene defects. It has nothing to do with our refusal to think rationally. It has everything to do with our personal experiences in life that simply cannot be explained by science, whether psychological or whatever. Do some religions base their faith on fictitious events/claims? Of course. Is that a reason to discount the existence of God? Of course not.

I think the differences between the theist and mercury stripe of atheist, is that one group is open minded and the other isn't.

[_Jason Bourne]

Here is the problem.

Listen to what you say to the believer.

Belief in God is old, give up your imaginary friend, it is false comfort, what you/they believe is false.

Look, be an atheist if you wish. I am fine with that.

But do not pretend that you really know whether or not there is a God.

You don't so don't speak in absolutes. That is really what I find irritating.

You may be right, you may be wrong, but you do not know.

There were plenty of things that were out there, and still are, that we have not discovered nor proven or at one time were that way. The power of the atom is recent knowledge but that power was still there before that. When we did not know how to detect and electron it was still there. When he did not understand how gravity works it was still there. The list of what was there that we have only found out about in the past 100 years is endless.

This may or may not be the case for God.

I am ok stating that I cannot give you hard empirical evidence for God. But don't pretend you know absolutes in this regards either.

I think if LDS backed off of their 'true knowledge / absolute' claims, then so would the critics.

This thread is not about the LDS Church. This thread is about God belief and all religion in genreal. Your point is not relevent.

[_guy sajer]

The fact is the only thing we humans know or perceive is transmitted to us through our senses. Most of us learned in grade school that there are five main senses (taste, feel, hear, sight, smell) but science is entertaining the possibility of others senses. There remains the possibility of perception to a supernatural world which mercury would no doubt laugh at as magical and hokey. However, there is considerable evidence to support this. Bonafide scientists have been studying the paranormal for years and have been performing tests and experiments in prestigious universities over the past century.

Mercury would tell me I must reject the existence of ESP since it has not been explained by science. Personally, I need no scientist to tell me ESP exists because I grew up watching my grandmother demonstrate it. It drove her nuts because she had no control over it. When my father had a boating accident and was stranded on a dune off the coast of Savannah, she knew about it instantly and called the coast guard. When her eldest son died while sleeping on a couch, she knew. There were more dramatic stories I could tell you which involved me, but the point here is that there is plenty truth out there that science has yet to explain. Humans have the ability to perceive the supernatural. Does this mean some people can perceive the existence of God while others cannot? Perhaps. Could this have something to do with the God gene? Perhaps. But none of this is testable, in spite of the evidence. ESP moments are not by design and most supernatural experiences are not planned.

Further, why do so many people who die and come back to life, experience the vision of a white light? Well, atheists will insist it has to do with electrons firing violently as the brain goes without oxygen, but this is not something they can prove. It is not something they can verify. It is not something they can test and it goes contrary to the feeling of peace illustrated in the thousands of testimonies. The atheist reasoning is based on their own anti-theist worldview in which an afterlife cannot exist. The human brain remains the most mysterious object in the universe, and science is told us oh so little about it.

The point here is that a supernatural world exists. I know it exists. Millions of people know it exists. Their evidence is often personal experience. I don’t need a scientist with his test tubes and microscope to confirm its existence for me. And atheists like mercury can howl at the moon all he wants, because there is nothing he can say to convince me and others, otherwise. This has nothing to do with our gene defects. It has nothing to do with our refusal to think rationally. It has everything to do with our personal experiences in life that simply cannot be explained by science, whether psychological or whatever. Do some religions base their faith on fictitious events/claims? Of course. Is that a reason to discount the existence of God? Of course not.

I think the differences between the theist and mercury stripe of atheist, is that one group is open minded and the other isn't.

Just to make sure I understand how you define "open minded," let me paraphrase what I think I hear you saying.

Mercury is closed minded because he "knows" supernatural phenomena do not exist and is unwilling to consider the possibility that they do.

You, however, are open minded because you "know" that supernatural phenomena exist, but are unwilling to consider the possibility that they do not.

Have I accurately summarized your point of view?

[_Jason Bourne]

Just to make sure I understand how you define "open minded," let me paraphrase what I think I hear you saying.

Mercury is closed minded because he "knows" supernatural phenomena do not exist and is unwilling to consider the possibility that they do.

You, however, are open minded because you "know" that supernatural phenomena exist, but are unwilling to consider the possibility that they do not.

Have I accurately summarized your point of view?

]


Not to speak for Dart but for me I would say:

Mercury is closed minded because he "knows" supernatural phenomena do not exist and is unwilling to consider the possibility that they do.

I am open minded because I have faith in God and that he exists but do not know nor have hard empircal evidence that he does. I am open to the idea that he may not exist. I know that my belief is in the realm of metaphysics and cannot be proven by any known methods at this time.

[_Mercury]

The fact is the only thing we humans know or perceive is transmitted to us through our senses. Most of us learned in grade school that there are five main senses (taste, feel, hear, sight, smell) but science is entertaining the possibility of others senses. There remains the possibility of perception to a supernatural world which mercury would no doubt laugh at as magical and hokey. However, there is considerable evidence to support this. Bonafide scientists have been studying the paranormal for years and have been performing tests and experiments in prestigious universities over the past century.

Mercury would tell me I must reject the existence of ESP since it has not been explained by science. Personally, I need no scientist to tell me ESP exists because I grew up watching my grandmother demonstrate it. It drove her nuts because she had no control over it. When my father had a boating accident and was stranded on a dune off the coast of Savannah, she knew about it instantly and called the coast guard. When her eldest son died while sleeping on a couch, she knew. There were more dramatic stories I could tell you which involved me, but the point here is that there is plenty truth out there that science has yet to explain. Humans have the ability to perceive the supernatural. Does this mean some people can perceive the existence of God while others cannot? Perhaps. Could this have something to do with the God gene? Perhaps. But none of this is testable, in spite of the evidence. ESP moments are not by design and most supernatural experiences are not planned.

Further, why do so many people who die and come back to life, experience the vision of a white light? Well, atheists will insist it has to do with electrons firing violently as the brain goes without oxygen, but this is not something they can prove. It is not something they can verify. It is not something they can test and it goes contrary to the feeling of peace illustrated in the thousands of testimonies. The atheist reasoning is based on their own anti-theist worldview in which an afterlife cannot exist. The human brain remains the most mysterious object in the universe, and science is told us oh so little about it.

The point here is that a supernatural world exists. I know it exists. Millions of people know it exists. Their evidence is often personal experience. I don’t need a scientist with his test tubes and microscope to confirm its existence for me. And atheists like mercury can howl at the moon all he wants, because there is nothing he can say to convince me and others, otherwise. This has nothing to do with our gene defects. It has nothing to do with our refusal to think rationally. It has everything to do with our personal experiences in life that simply cannot be explained by science, whether psychological or whatever. Do some religions base their faith on fictitious events/claims? Of course. Is that a reason to discount the existence of God? Of course not.

I think the differences between the theist and mercury stripe of atheist, is that one group is open minded and the other isn't.

Just to make sure I understand how you define "open minded," let me paraphrase what I think I hear you saying.

Mercury is closed minded because he "knows" supernatural phenomena do not exist and is unwilling to consider the possibility that they do.

You, however, are open minded because you "know" that supernatural phenomena exist, but are unwilling to consider the possibility that they do not.

Have I accurately summarized your point of view?

That looks to be pretty close to the case. It seems that the decry of intolerance is coming from those who cannot tolerate a dissenting opinion. Why Gaz is not vilified in the same dogpile method for stating that others are patently wrong is perplexing to me. Even as a Mormon the christians would rather side with a Mormon than one of those baby eating atheists.

Better stay out of this Guy...otherwise you are going to have Moksha on your ass blaming you for Nehors departure.

We miss you nehor! (oh, im sorry...I can't say "we" without getting yelled at either. "I" miss you nehor)

[_barrelomonkeys]

We miss you nehor! (oh, I'm sorry...I can't say "we" without getting yelled at either. "I" miss you nehor)

LMAO! I thought that was funny Mercury.

I know you're busy, but I'm still curious about the statement you made earlier. How do you believe others see me Mercury? What do I need to see that everyone else does?

[_guy sajer]

Just to make sure I understand how you define "open minded," let me paraphrase what I think I hear you saying.

Mercury is closed minded because he "knows" supernatural phenomena do not exist and is unwilling to consider the possibility that they do.

You, however, are open minded because you "know" that supernatural phenomena exist, but are unwilling to consider the possibility that they do not.

Have I accurately summarized your point of view?

]


Not to speak for Dart but for me I would say:

Mercury is closed minded because he "knows" supernatural phenomena do not exist and is unwilling to consider the possibility that they do.

I am open minded because I have faith in God and that he exists but do not know nor have hard empircal evidence that he does. I am open to the idea that he may not exist. I know that my belief is in the realm of metaphysics and cannot be proven by any known methods at this time.

Here's my problem. Since when is one's skepticism about the supernatural (strongly doubting its existence and demanding objectively verifiable evidence) equal to "closed mindedness?"

In the case of God, believers privilege belief in God relative to other supernatural beliefs, and then consider non-believers closed-minded because they are not willing to concede the possibility (or consider it extremely remote).

But could not the believer in some other supernatural phenomenon, let's say fairies, level the same charge of closed-mindedness at those who believe in God but who are unwilling to consider the possibility that fairies exist? Do theists accept that they are closed-minded for not believing in fairies?

We privilege God relative to other supernatural beliefs in the debates because we are socially conditioned to, but there's no inherent reason it has to be this way.

I reject the charge that one is closed minded for holding high levels of skepticism about supernatural phenomena. It strikes me as inappropriately shifting the burden of evidence. If you want me to believe, give me evidence, and, sorry, I don't consider grandmama's prescience as objectively verifiable evidence (Lord only knows how many times her prescience was wrong--but we're not counting the misses, only the hits).