Is the statement "god exists" true?

[_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.

I do not have time to address pseudoscientific pablum digested by moronic mouth breathers determined to extract value from their meaningless lives through supposed supernatural powers and incorrectly interpreted coincidence. I don't have time for confidence game material.

As for your "the white light is supernatural" bull, it has been proven by US military scientists that the white light phenomena and out of body experiences are results of hypoxia in the brain:

http://www.near-death.com/experiences/triggers06.html

But this is just that evidence thing...your going to ignore it anyways and have ten other apocryphal incredibly improbable stories to replace your near death experience bull.

You quoting the NDE as !PROOF! of another metaphysical reality outside my worldview shows you lack the ability to research and validate your opinions based on hard evidence. And for that I feel sorry for you.

[_Mercury]

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?

i dunno. The problem with being human is that the only perspective one truly understands is their own.

[_Gazelam]

You CAN prove that God exists. It's called Moronis promise. People do it every day.

The sad thing is that Mercury KNOWS this and sits here railing against it anyway.

[_Jersey Girl]

Can you prove that God esists? No. Next question?

[_Tarski]

You CAN prove that God exists. It's called Moronis promise. People do it every day.

The sad thing is that Mercury KNOWS this and sits here railing against it anyway.

Umm, your confusing a proof with the simple event of a person becoming convinced (by a feeling or inner private experience). The spiritual witness could be a bogus production of the mind. There is certainly no way to prove otherwise even to oneself. There is always a possibility of being fooled in in this case the high likelihood of being fooled. So, it's no proof.

[_Gazelam]

You CAN prove that God exists. It's called Moronis promise. People do it every day.

The sad thing is that Mercury KNOWS this and sits here railing against it anyway.

Umm, your confusing a proof with the simple event of a person becoming convinced (by a feeling or inner private experience). The spiritual witness could be a bogus production of the mind. There is certainly no way to prove otherwise even to oneself. There is always a possibility of being fooled in in this case the high likelihood of being fooled. So, it's no proof.

Your telling me that a person offering a prayer that is suddenly filled with light, and assurance, and peace, and joy, and comfort, where those things didn't exist before is merely bogusly producing these things in ther mind. All over the world. Alone in their homes after reading the Book of Mormon.

This receiving of revelation is a reoccurin gevent and the fullfillment of a promise from God. It is a way of proving that God exists, merely by doing what he has asked us to do, through his prophets, since the Fall of Adam.

[_moksha]

Belief in God is a choice. People who believe in God find that it enriches and adds meaning to their lives.

Good point about the choice part. If I had not gone through an atheistic phase in my life, I would not have been able to put together a set of beliefs that work for me. I would not have been able to realize that one determined atheist could deconstruct the entire Harvard Divinity School using naught but the Socratic method. I would also not have realized that all belief is undertaken for one's benefit and requires a huge leap of faith that necessarily has to defy someone else's disbelief. What you are talking about is something essentially your own, but it is nice when you can share portions of it in an organized way.

Why believe? Viktor Frankel found that those people who have something to believe in are best able to survive through the rigors and adversity of life.

[_dartagnan]

Mercury is only capable of pithy jackass statements and he seems completely unable to comprehend what has been said. For example, I never said NDEs represent “proof,” of God, but he needs a straw man desperately and he won’t be deterred in getting one. You guys need to get it in your head that I’m not here to prove to you God exists. But I can point out the holes in your arguments, which is what’s driving mercury nuts.

Guy, you said:

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.

Well, anytime you deny a possibility of something, you’re in danger of being closed-minded. That’s just the nature of the beast. But yes, he is closed-minded because he is unwilling to accept the possibility that others have had genuine supernatural experiences, and he does so only because he himself has yet to experience one.

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

There is a difference here, so allow me to delineate it as best as I can. My perspective of knowing the supernatural exists, is based on my own affirmative experiences which confirm it to me, whereas mercury’s perspective denying its existence is based on his lack of experience. This is like someone denying my father is alive simply because they have never met him. He is trying to use rhetoric and schoolyard taunts to compensate for the uncomfortable fact that he needs to prove a negative.

And unlike mercury, I don’t know of any scientist worth his salt who would say he “knows” definitively that the supernatural doesn’t exist. I suspect what we would hear from them is that they have yet to see evidence favoring it, and I would hope that most scientists are open-minded enough to consider the possibility that evidence might come there way. And why not? I mean there is nothing inherently contradictory between science and the supernatural world, so why jump to the dogmatic position of “knowing” the negative? This is why I find mercury’s position somewhat hypocritical as he attacks the LDS testimony of “knowing.” One cannot prove a negative, yet mercury is content to think he can, at least to his own satisfaction. I mean by his own admission, his knowledge comes only from things he can “see” and verify through scientific analysis. The supernatural is untestable, so his basis for rejecting it is fallacious by his own standard. In the meantime, he is a jerk off to everyone who claims to have had supernatural experiences; experiences he would rather categorize as psychological phenomena. But by his own admission, he is no scientist nor is he a psychologist, so he is in no authoritative position to declare such things as conclusive. He’s just a rambling bigot who hates theists.

Further, I do not consider myself closed-minded for denying the possibility of the supernatural, for the same reason I do not consider myself closed-minded for denying that I have two feet. I have received affirmative confirmation that I have two feet just as I have received affirmative confirmation that the supernatural exists. Whether you personally accept this is irrelevant to me. But mercury cannot match this compelling affirmation with his own affirmative confirmation that the supernatural doesn’t exist because that is proving a negative.

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?"

It isn’t. And that isn’t what’s been taking place. I have been on this forum for nearly a year with atheists and don’t recall ever being provoked to defend theism until mercury’s recent rants. He isn’t just being skeptical as you suggest. He isn’t just demanding evidence. He isn’t just attacking faith. He has made the attack very personal by accusing all theists of being subhuman for allowing this so-called genetic defect to trick them into believing fairy tales. He accuses us of hindering progress in humanity. He leaps to the negative extreme where most scientists do not, while pretending to have a clue about science. Surely you can see the difference here. He has been a complete jerk off and now he has the audacity to pretend he is the one being attacked; even starting entire threads based on his persecuted status. What an idiot.

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).

Again, you are wrong. Mercury is closed-minded not because he is merely skeptical, but because he has been wholly adamant about having science on his side, while refusing to substantiate anything he has said with science. Every time I ask him to substantiate something with science, he takes off and starts another thread. For example, he will not substantiate his claim that belief in God is not beneficial to the individual, even though scientists disagree. Instead, he will throw out schoolyard slurs while starting new threads.

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?

The problem is we know their origin just as we know the origin of superman and bugs bunny, so it isn’t the same to say their existence is just as plausible as God’s.

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.

One could argue that it is social conditioning but scientists are now arguing that it is genetic. So which is it? The belief in deity is as old as humanity. What is most likely the case is that humans have always perceived that they are not alone and that they exist for a designed purpose. I believe this is based on an extra sensory perception innate to all humans, although advanced in some to certain degrees.

I reject the charge that one is closed minded for holding high levels of skepticism about supernatural phenomena.

Again, rejecting anything endangers one of closed-mindedness. The fact is there is substantial evidence for the supernatural, and at the very least, we know that science doesn’t explain all mysteries, which leaves the door open to much we don’t know. To sit back and say OK, I don’t know, but I know it can’t be God, is in fact being closed-minded.

It strikes me as inappropriately shifting the burden of evidence.

It isn’t inappropriate at all. Mercury claimed to appreciate a scientific standard so I am simply holding him to it. If he only believes what science has proved, as he likes to boast, then let him show us where science has proved the supernatural is imaginary. Show us where science has satisfactorily explained the mysteries of the universe, or the human organ called the brain. There is so much we don’t know, but it is the pseudo-scientist who likes to leap to the unwarranted conclusion that science establishes enough for us that we can discount the supernatural altogether. I know it must gnaw at him to feel compelled to keep bobbing and weaving at this point, but the problem is his, not mine.

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).

You seem to have overlooked the fact that it is mercury who is starting thread after thread challenging the theists. He is on the attack, not the defensive. I don’t recall any threads started by theists attacking the atheist’s rejection of God. This is what I find so ironical here because you guys are trying to paint the theist as the intolerant bigot, whereas in reality, you guys are the ones getting all huffy simply because we don’t let your rants go unchallenged.

Most theists I know don’t try to convince atheists God exists. Do you ever wonder why this is the case? It is probably because we know it will take a personal experience to convince, and that is not something that can be conveyed through debate. And about my grandmother, you cannot explain away these experiences as coincidence. You can call me a liar I suppose, but that says more about your closed-mindedness than anything else. You can be science-minded and closed-minded just the same, if you’re only willing to accept evidence that you can personally verify. The fact is I grew up around this. Many people have. You want to dismiss us all as a bunch of hoaxers because to accept the plausibility of what we say throws a wrench in your worldview, so you are more interested in defending a predetermined worldview than you are in finding truth. These experiences cannot be dismissed as coincidence, and this is a fact. You try to dismiss them as merely prescience but it is much more than that. The near death experiences of millions of people, who claim to have had similar experiences, cannot be coincidence either. For example, the numerous testimonies of people who see their bodies while hovering over the bed… what scientific explanation accounts for these? None. All you can do is accuse the lot of a hoax conspiracy. Or you could drudge up some lame web article as mercury has done, which assumes fighter pilots losing consciousness is the same as people actually dying temporarily. Or you could respond like an idiot, as mercury has done, with more childish rhetoric. What is beyond doubt is that mercury does not speak for science and most scientists do not agree with his dogmatic conclusions. But that means nothing to him. Why worry yourself with the facts when your mind is already made up?

Now I realize ESP and God are not the same, but if ESP exists, the next baby-step is to acknowledge God’s existence, since they are both supernatural.

In a more dramatic account – while I’m in the mood – in the late 1960’s my grandparents stopped at a pawn shop on their way home from work. When my grandma walked in she said she felt cold and the room seemed dark. When the clerk came around the corner she said she couldn’t see a face on him and she freaked out and ran back to the car where she hid behind the steering wheel and honked for her husband. Of course my grandfather was used to this, but he also knew she was usually right, so he got in the car and they left without a fuss. Later that evening they found out on the news that shortly after leaving the shop, the place was robbed and the man working there had his head blown off with a shotgun. Word in the neighborhood got around about her experience so a news reporter came by the house to interview her but she refused.

In the mid-80’s there was a huge sink hole that caved in, in downtown Orlando. Had my grandmother continued on home after work as she had done every day for 15 years, she would have ended up driving right into the hole. But for some strange reason she detoured and she never could figure out why until she got home and heard about the tragedy on the news. Many people died, and she probably would have been one of them. In fact, she saw on the news one of the cars that had fallen into the hole and she swears it was a car that she was following before she inexplicably detoured.

Coincidence?

Lies?

I might have assumed this too if I wasn’t intimately involved with that side of the family. As a kid, I would spend the summers in Orlando where they lived, and my grandmother would sit there in tears as she explained some of these accounts to me. She hated them. She hated knowing stuff like that. I have an entire family who verifies her ESP, and I have yet to discover any reason to think they are all making this stuff up. Apparently, it skips every other generation, which is why I have no problem denying the God gene theory. I believe it is genetic. Her grandmother had it too, and it was such a common ability with them that they were confused as to why other people didn’t have these experiences too. But the problem is that it wasn’t something you could control. It wasn’t like she could see what cards you were holding. All of the experiences seemed to be related to family members in danger, and this is a common factor in most ESP accounts. This makes it virtually untestable, unfortunately. But just because we cannot test them, that doesn't mean we have license to discount everyone who experiences these as liars. It is a fau pax to think all truth can be confirmed or disconfirmed through scientific analysis. The scientific method is useful in most cases, but it is not universally applicable to all truth.

[_guy sajer]

Mercury is only capable of pithy jackass statements and he seems completely unable to comprehend what has been said. For example, I never said NDEs represent “proof,” of God, but he needs a straw man desperately and he won’t be deterred in getting one. You guys need to get it in your head that I’m not here to prove to you God exists. But I can point out the holes in your arguments, which is what’s driving mercury nuts.

Guy, you said:

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.

Well, anytime you deny a possibility of something, you’re in danger of being closed-minded. That’s just the nature of the beast. But yes, he is closed-minded because he is unwilling to accept the possibility that others have had genuine supernatural experiences, and he does so only because he himself has yet to experience one.

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

There is a difference here, so allow me to delineate it as best as I can. My perspective of knowing the supernatural exists, is based on my own affirmative experiences which confirm it to me, whereas mercury’s perspective denying its existence is based on his lack of experience. This is like someone denying my father is alive simply because they have never met him. He is trying to use rhetoric and schoolyard taunts to compensate for the uncomfortable fact that he needs to prove a negative.

And unlike mercury, I don’t know of any scientist worth his salt who would say he “knows” definitively that the supernatural doesn’t exist. I suspect what we would hear from them is that they have yet to see evidence favoring it, and I would hope that most scientists are open-minded enough to consider the possibility that evidence might come there way. And why not? I mean there is nothing inherently contradictory between science and the supernatural world, so why jump to the dogmatic position of “knowing” the negative? This is why I find mercury’s position somewhat hypocritical as he attacks the LDS testimony of “knowing.” One cannot prove a negative, yet mercury is content to think he can, at least to his own satisfaction. I mean by his own admission, his knowledge comes only from things he can “see” and verify through scientific analysis. The supernatural is untestable, so his basis for rejecting it is fallacious by his own standard. In the meantime, he is a jerk off to everyone who claims to have had supernatural experiences; experiences he would rather categorize as psychological phenomena. But by his own admission, he is no scientist nor is he a psychologist, so he is in no authoritative position to declare such things as conclusive. He’s just a rambling bigot who hates theists.

Further, I do not consider myself closed-minded for denying the possibility of the supernatural, for the same reason I do not consider myself closed-minded for denying that I have two feet. I have received affirmative confirmation that I have two feet just as I have received affirmative confirmation that the supernatural exists. Whether you personally accept this is irrelevant to me. But mercury cannot match this compelling affirmation with his own affirmative confirmation that the supernatural doesn’t exist because that is proving a negative.

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?"

It isn’t. And that isn’t what’s been taking place. I have been on this forum for nearly a year with atheists and don’t recall ever being provoked to defend theism until mercury’s recent rants. He isn’t just being skeptical as you suggest. He isn’t just demanding evidence. He isn’t just attacking faith. He has made the attack very personal by accusing all theists of being subhuman for allowing this so-called genetic defect to trick them into believing fairy tales. He accuses us of hindering progress in humanity. He leaps to the negative extreme where most scientists do not, while pretending to have a clue about science. Surely you can see the difference here. He has been a complete jerk off and now he has the audacity to pretend he is the one being attacked; even starting entire threads based on his persecuted status. What an idiot.

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).

Again, you are wrong. Mercury is closed-minded not because he is merely skeptical, but because he has been wholly adamant about having science on his side, while refusing to substantiate anything he has said with science. Every time I ask him to substantiate something with science, he takes off and starts another thread. For example, he will not substantiate his claim that belief in God is not beneficial to the individual, even though scientists disagree. Instead, he will throw out schoolyard slurs while starting new threads.

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?

The problem is we know their origin just as we know the origin of superman and bugs bunny, so it isn’t the same to say their existence is just as plausible as God’s.

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.

One could argue that it is social conditioning but scientists are now arguing that it is genetic. So which is it? The belief in deity is as old as humanity. What is most likely the case is that humans have always perceived that they are not alone and that they exist for a designed purpose. I believe this is based on an extra sensory perception innate to all humans, although advanced in some to certain degrees.

I reject the charge that one is closed minded for holding high levels of skepticism about supernatural phenomena.

Again, rejecting anything endangers one of closed-mindedness. The fact is there is substantial evidence for the supernatural, and at the very least, we know that science doesn’t explain all mysteries, which leaves the door open to much we don’t know. To sit back and say OK, I don’t know, but I know it can’t be God, is in fact being closed-minded.

It strikes me as inappropriately shifting the burden of evidence.

It isn’t inappropriate at all. Mercury claimed to appreciate a scientific standard so I am simply holding him to it. If he only believes what science has proved, as he likes to boast, then let him show us where science has proved the supernatural is imaginary. Show us where science has satisfactorily explained the mysteries of the universe, or the human organ called the brain. There is so much we don’t know, but it is the pseudo-scientist who likes to leap to the unwarranted conclusion that science establishes enough for us that we can discount the supernatural altogether. I know it must gnaw at him to feel compelled to keep bobbing and weaving at this point, but the problem is his, not mine.

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).

You seem to have overlooked the fact that it is mercury who is starting thread after thread challenging the theists. He is on the attack, not the defensive. I don’t recall any threads started by theists attacking the atheist’s rejection of God. This is what I find so ironical here because you guys are trying to paint the theist as the intolerant bigot, whereas in reality, you guys are the ones getting all huffy simply because we don’t let your rants go unchallenged.

Most theists I know don’t try to convince atheists God exists. Do you ever wonder why this is the case? It is probably because we know it will take a personal experience to convince, and that is not something that can be conveyed through debate. And about my grandmother, you cannot explain away these experiences as coincidence. You can call me a liar I suppose, but that says more about your closed-mindedness than anything else. You can be science-minded and closed-minded just the same, if you’re only willing to accept evidence that you can personally verify. The fact is I grew up around this. Many people have. You want to dismiss us all as a bunch of hoaxers because to accept the plausibility of what we say throws a wrench in your worldview, so you are more interested in defending a predetermined worldview than you are in finding truth. These experiences cannot be dismissed as coincidence, and this is a fact. You try to dismiss them as merely prescience but it is much more than that. The near death experiences of millions of people, who claim to have had similar experiences, cannot be coincidence either. For example, the numerous testimonies of people who see their bodies while hovering over the bed… what scientific explanation accounts for these? None. All you can do is accuse the lot of a hoax conspiracy. Or you could drudge up some lame web article as mercury has done, which assumes fighter pilots losing consciousness is the same as people actually dying temporarily. Or you could respond like an idiot, as mercury has done, with more childish rhetoric. What is beyond doubt is that mercury does not speak for science and most scientists do not agree with his dogmatic conclusions. But that means nothing to him. Why worry yourself with the facts when your mind is already made up?

Now I realize ESP and God are not the same, but if ESP exists, the next baby-step is to acknowledge God’s existence, since they are both supernatural.

In a more dramatic account – while I’m in the mood – in the late 1960’s my grandparents stopped at a pawn shop on their way home from work. When my grandma walked in she said she felt cold and the room seemed dark. When the clerk came around the corner she said she couldn’t see a face on him and she freaked out and ran back to the car where she hid behind the steering wheel and honked for her husband. Of course my grandfather was used to this, but he also knew she was usually right, so he got in the car and they left without a fuss. Later that evening they found out on the news that shortly after leaving the shop, the place was robbed and the man working there had his head blown off with a shotgun. Word in the neighborhood got around about her experience so a news reporter came by the house to interview her but she refused.

In the mid-80’s there was a huge sink hole that caved in, in downtown Orlando. Had my grandmother continued on home after work as she had done every day for 15 years, she would have ended up driving right into the hole. But for some strange reason she detoured and she never could figure out why until she got home and heard about the tragedy on the news. Many people died, and she probably would have been one of them. In fact, she saw on the news one of the cars that had fallen into the hole and she swears it was a car that she was following before she inexplicably detoured.

Coincidence?

Lies?

I might have assumed this too if I wasn’t intimately involved with that side of the family. As a kid, I would spend the summers in Orlando where they lived, and my grandmother would sit there in tears as she explained some of these accounts to me. She hated them. She hated knowing stuff like that. I have an entire family who verifies her ESP, and I have yet to discover any reason to think they are all making this stuff up. Apparently, it skips every other generation, which is why I have no problem denying the God gene theory. I believe it is genetic. Her grandmother had it too, and it was such a common ability with them that they were confused as to why other people didn’t have these experiences too. But the problem is that it wasn’t something you could control. It wasn’t like she could see what cards you were holding. All of the experiences seemed to be related to family members in danger, and this is a common factor in most ESP accounts. This makes it virtually untestable, unfortunately. But just because we cannot test them, that doesn't mean we have license to discount everyone who experiences these as liars. It is a fau pax to think all truth can be confirmed or disconfirmed through scientific analysis. The scientific method is useful in most cases, but it is not universally applicable to all truth.

Ok, fair enough. You've obviously given this much thought. I respect your point of view.

I'm not convinced, however, but hey, different strokes . . . .

[_Jason Bourne]

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).

I have no problem with skepticism and did not say that is closed mindedness. But what Merc portrays here is not skepticism it is "I know there is no God" and he seems intolerant of any other view. Least that is how I read him. Thus he seems to have a closed mind on this topic.

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?

I am not sure comparing fairies to God is a good comparison. God at least had tradition, scripture and some claimed supernatural events attributed to him for which we have records of those events from a variety of witnesses. If you can compile the same thing for fairies then your argument may be good.

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.

Not an invalid point.

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).

Your choice to believe is up to you and your coming to know God is up to you as well. Since I believe that God is known currently only through personal spiritual experiences I cannot do that for you. I do however, not expect anyone to take my word for it and unlike say Gaz, understand that my spiritual experiences are mine alone and will never be able to be used as hard empirical evidence.