Does God Really Exist or is the Notion of a God a figment of our Imagination

[Johnnie Cake]

While once a firm believer in God I now tend to fall on the agnostic side of this question.  I see absolutely no evidence that a god exists.  Despite Elder Oaks recent comments that the LDS version of God saved the 3 Mormon Missionaries from the most sever impacts of the bomb blast in Brussels, I merely see it as the lucky consequences of a random event.  Being in the right place to withstand the impact while others were not so lucky.  How exactly did the LDS God impact the results of this blast.  And if He did somehow save the missionaries...what an *** for not saving the 35 who where killed.  How do you worship such a being who puts the needs of 3 above the lives of the 35.  To me it is just an example of Oaks confirmation bias.  He believes in a God so he sees this random event as the consequences of God.

I could go on with example after example...but just being honest...other than the human induced chemical endorphins in the human mind that create warm tingling feelings un-unique to Mormon's, what evidence is there of the kind of God Mormon worship? I can't see any.

Edited April 29, 2016 by Johnnie Cake

[Kevin Christensen]

Regarding evidence:

Quote

There are no bare uninterpreted data. Expectations and conceptual commitments influence perceptions, both in everyday life and in science. Man supplies the categories of interpretation, right from the start. The very language in which observations are reported is influenced by prior theories … The presuppositions which the scientist brings to his inquiry are reflected in the way he formulates a problem, the kind of apparatus he builds, and the type of variable he considers important. Here the emphasis is on theory and the way it permeates observation.

In N. R Hanson’s oft quoted words, ‘All Data are theory-laden.’ The procedures of measurement and the interpretation of the resulting measurement and interpretation of the resulting numerical values depend in implicit theoretical assumptions. Most of the time, scientists work within a framework of thought which they have inherited … But, says Feyerband, when the background theory itself is an issue, when the fundamental assumptions and basic concepts are under attack, then the dependence of measurement on theoretical assumptions is crucial.²²

Barbour, Myths, Models, and Paradigms, 95.

This sort of thing is why Jesus explained in the Parable of the Sower that the same seeds (words) can lead to vastly different yields depending on soil and nurture.   It's also why in explaining the meaning to the questioning disciples, Jesus comments, "Know ye not this parable?  How then can ye know all parables."  And it is also why the story of the restoration begins with Joseph Smith reporting that "the different teachers of religion understood the same passages of scripture so differently as to destroy all confidence in settling the question by an appeal to the Bible."

Alma 32, I notice makes an important distinction between those who seek to "know" in a once-and-for-all way via some coercive demonstration by God, despite the unavoidable payload of absolute accountability in such light, and those who settle for an open-ended and ongoing "cause to believe."

If you're looking for "cause to believe," based on a sincere desire to believe, and if you show a willingness to start with even a portion of the word, and are willing to do with necessary nurture and take the necessary time then, in my view and experience, evidence that invites belief, is plentiful, and the search is continually fruitful, rewarding, enlightening, and promising   For example, this sort of thing:

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/22100469/model_of_experience.pdf

If you are looking to be coerced to your knees and held upsidedown by evidence endorsed by skeptical secular authorities that shakes the tithes out of your pockets, compels absolute obedience and faithfulness thereafter, you may have a long wait.  I don't see a lot of evidence for that kind of God.  But then, I don't think I want that kind of God.  And if that is the only kind of God I am willing to believe in, I'm also ensuring that not only is that the only kind of God I'll ever find, but also that I won't enjoy the discovery if I ever find that God.

It's not just about evidence, but soil and nurture.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[mnn727]

While many people claim to "Know" I just don't get it.

I have faith, I have belief, but unless God visits you like he did Joseph, I don't see how anyone can "Know" until after death.

[Johnnie Cake]

14 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Regarding evidence:

Barbour, Myths, Models, and Paradigms, 95.

This sort of thing is why Jesus explained in the Parable of the Sower that the same seeds (words) can lead to vastly different yields depending on soil and nurture.   It's also why in explaining the meaning to the questioning disciples, Jesus comments, "Know ye not this parable?  How then can ye know all parables."  And it is also why the story of the restoration begins with Joseph Smith reporting that "the different teachers of religion understood the same passages of scripture so differently as to destroy all confidence in settling the question by an appeal to the Bible."

Alma 32, I notice makes an important distinction between those who seek to "know" in a once-and-for-all way via some coercive demonstration by God, despite the unavoidable payload of absolute accountability in such light, and those who settle for an open-ended and ongoing "cause to believe."

If you're looking for "cause to believe," based on a sincere desire to believe, and if you show a willingness to start with even a portion of the word, and are willing to do with necessary nurture and take the necessary time then, in my view and experience, evidence that invites belief, is plentiful, and the search is continually fruitful, rewarding, enlightening, and promising   For example, this sort of thing:

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/22100469/model_of_experience.pdf

If you are looking to be coerced to your knees and held upsidedown by evidence endorsed by skeptical secular authorities that shakes the tithes out of your pockets, compels absolute obedience and faithfulness thereafter, you may have a long wait.  I don't see a lot of evidence for that kind of God.  But then, I don't think I want that kind of God.  And if that is the only kind of God I am willing to believe in, I'm also ensuring that not only is that the only kind of God I'll ever find, but also that I won't enjoy the discovery if I ever find that God.

It's not just about evidence, but soil and nurture.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

So some are more inclined to faith and belief while others more inclined to skepticism, critical thinking and evidence. To the religious their dirt is always considered more special and pure while they always look down on the unbelievers as less somehow being less than themselves because we ask questions and expect to have evidence before belief...Frankly this worldview of superiority is off putting...but not unexpected.  Keep in mind Kevin that faith and belief are not unique to Mormonism.  It is a common thread of religions of all stripes and claims...with each adherent claiming that their unique version of god is the right version...so appear to be more of a human characteristic than a Mormon characteristic

Edited April 28, 2016 by Johnnie Cake

[Calm]

For me there are different types of knowledge, one is knowledge gained by being taught in classes, reading, etc. (though 'reality' is less one type or another but rather a mix of all forms so I am speaking of the dominant form, the category I first think of generally when thinking of the process of acquiring that bit of knowledge).  Intellectual knowledge is perhaps a good term for it; though I use my intellect for all knowledge, this form relies heaviest on the use of the intellect rather than personal experience.  The knowedge I have of God's existence...I can't point to something someone told me or external evidence, it is an internal experience but I find it inappropriate to call it faith myself because of the certainty of his presence that I experience when I think of him. So I say "I know" because I know this in the same way I know my kids love me or that my tailbone is currently really, really annoying me.

Otoh, I would say I have faith/hope this knowledge experience is something that will be confirmed to be true for me eternally (not quite sure how to say this precisely in a pragmatic way).

[Kevin Christensen]

11 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

So some are more inclined to faith and belief while others more inclined to skepticism, critical thinking and evidence. To the religious their dirt is always considered more special and pure while they always look down on the unbelievers as less somehow being less than themselves because we ask questions and expect to have evidence before belief...Frankly this worldview of superiority is off putting...but not unexpected.  Keep in mind Kevin that faith and belief are not unique to Mormonism.  It is a common thread of religions of all stripes and claims...with each adherent claiming that their unique version of god is the right version...so appear to be more of a human characteristic than a Mormon characteristic

Hi Johnnie,

Quote

unbelievers as less somehow being less than themselves because we ask questions and expect to have evidence before belief...Frankly this worldview of superiority is off putting...but not unexpected.

Yep.   No irony here.

The place for skepticism, Jesus explains, is first in removing beams from our own eyes, and then we can see clearly.  Becoming aware and self-critical about the ways that our own ideologies affects the information we select for notice and the experiments we choose to perform, and how we evaluate the results.  Anyone can uncritically dismiss anyone else for not being them.  It takes a more concentrated effort to become self critical and aware.

Quote

During the 1930’s and 1940’s the positivists had taken science as the norm for all meaningful discourse. Religious language was considered neither true nor false, but meaningless. The positivists had declared the famous Verification Principle, which states that, apart from tautologies and definitions, statements are meaningful only if they can be verified by sense data.⁶⁹ Accepting an oversimplified view of science as the prototype for all genuine knowledge, they dismissed religion as “purely emotive.”

During the 1950’s positivism came under increasing attack, but many of its assumptions were perpetuated in the empiricism which came to replace it as the dominant interpretation of science. Among the empiricist claims were the following. (1) Science starts from publicly observable data which can be described in a pure observation-language independent of any theoretical assumptions. (2) Theories can be verified or falsified by comparison with this fixed experimental data. (3) The choice between theories is rational, objective and in accordance with specifiable criteria. Philosophers under the sway of such empiricism continued to say that religion can legitimately make no cognitive claims.⁷⁰

Barbour, 3 . 

Quote

These ideas came under increasing attack in the late 1950’s and early 1960’s, and three counter-claims were advanced. (1) All data are theory-laden; there is no neutral observation-language. (2) Theories are not verified or falsified; when data conflict with an accepted theory, they are usually set to one side as anomalies, or else auxiliary assumptions are modified. (3) There are no criteria for choice between rival theories of great generality, for the criteria are themselves theory-dependent.

The attack on empiricism was carried a step further in Thomas Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962). Kuhn held that the thought and action of a scientific community are dominated by its paradigms, defined as ‘standard examples of scientific work which embody a set of conceptual, methodological and metaphysical assumptions’. He maintained that observational data and criteria for assessing theories are paradigm-dependent.⁷¹

Barbour, 9.

If you take the time to read the essay I linked, you might notice that I'm dealing with a range of different kinds of evidence ('cause to believe') from a stance of comparative religious experience, and not anyone's unique view.  I'm looking at the kinds of evidence common to believers of all faiths and showing how Mormon experiences work in that context.  It seemed like that might have been helpful to you.

Quote

Participation in a religious tradition also demands a more total personal involvement than occurs in science. Religious questions are of ultimate concern, since the meaning of one’s existence is at stake. Religion asks about the final objects of a person’s devotion and loyalty, for which he will sacrifice other interests if necessary. Too detached an attitude may cut a person off from the very kinds of experience which are religiously most significant. Reorientation and reconciliation are transformations of life-pattern affecting all aspects of personality, not intellect alone. Religious writings use the language of actors, not the language of spectators. Religious commitment, then, is a self-involving personal response, a serious decision implicating one’s whole life, a willingness to act and suffer for what one believes in.¹⁴⁷

Barbour, 135–136.  Emphasis mine.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[Ahab]

I recently started another thread titled "God vs no God" that is basically addtessing the same issue and I think the first thing to think about is what the word "God" refers to.

What some people think of as God is not what the true God really is so... as I was recently telling one of my cousins who also considers himself to be an atheist... what those people think of which they refer to as God does NOT in fact truly exist.  

But there is such a thing as the most supreme being in all of existence and that kind of being is the true God.

[Glenn101]

20 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

So some are more inclined to faith and belief while others more inclined to skepticism, critical thinking and evidence. To the religious their dirt is always considered more special and pure while they always look down on the unbelievers as less somehow being less than themselves because we ask questions and expect to have evidence before belief...Frankly this worldview of superiority is off putting...but not unexpected.  Keep in mind Kevin that faith and belief are not unique to Mormonism.  It is a common thread of religions of all stripes and claims...with each adherent claiming that their unique version of god is the right version...so appear to be more of a human characteristic than a Mormon characteristic

I know that the Holy Ghost exists. I have met him, but it was not a "warm tingly feeling."

Now, I would like to quote you. "others more inclined to skepticism, critical thinking and evidence.......... .Frankly this worldview of superiority is off putting...but not unexpected."

Do you see how the shoe also fits other feet?

So, what evidence do you have that there is no God? What evidence do you have that this universe happened by accident?

We all have the same facts before us, pretty much. So we are left with the interpretation of facts. There are intelligent people on both sides of this question. Are only skeptics able to interpret the facts correctly?

Glenn

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

I could go on with example after example...but just being honest...other than the human induced chemical endorphins in the human mind that create warm tingling feelings un-unique to Mormon's, what evidence is there of the kind of God Mormon worship? I can't see any.

How are chemical endorphins induced by humans? Am I doing it now? If you can do it, why aren't you doing it now?

[Jim Stiles]

2 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

hile once a firm believer in God I now tend to fall on the agnostic side of this question.  I see absolutely no evidence that a god exists.  Despite Elder Oaks recent comments that the LDS version of God saved the 3 Mormon Missionaries from the most sever impacts of the bomb blast in Brussels, I merely see it as the lucky consequences of a random event.  Being in the right place to withstand the impact while others were not so lucky.  How exactly did the LDS God impact the results of this blast.  And if He did somehow save the missionaries...what an *** for not saving the 35 who where killed.  How do you worship such a being who puts the needs of 3 above the lives of the 35.  To me it is just an example of Oaks confirmation bias.  He believes in a God so he sees this random event as the consequences of God.

I could go on with example after example...but just being honest...other than the human induced chemical endorphins in the human mind that create warm tingling feelings un-unique to Mormon's, what evidence is there of the kind of God Mormon worship? I can't see any.

I agree.  I see no evidence for the existence of the Mormon God and the Mormon Jesus either.

[Boanerges]

I wouldn't call myself agnostic, but I don't "know" there is a God, either. I think there is, I believe there is, I hope there is. But that God that I think about, believe in, and hope for does not seem to be the same one that others talk about on fast Sunday. This God that I observe (if that's the right word) doesn't seem to help people find lost car keys (wouldn't the all-powerful Creator of the universe have something better to do anyway?) or stop child abuse or Holocausts. I'm not at all sure this God hears any prayers, much less answer them. But I do believe this didn't all "just happen" and I hope our God does care about us. If there is indeed an afterlife, I shall know - and if there isn't I guess I'll never know because "ever" will have been a rather short period of time. In the meantime, Jesus Christ asked us to believe, and I do believe - and I am content with that.

[Mystery Meat]

2 hours ago, mnn727 said:

While many people claim to "Know" I just don't get it.

I have faith, I have belief, but unless God visits you like he did Joseph, I don't see how anyone can "Know" until after death.

That because you don't. I do, and I have never seen him.

[Gray]

Quote

Does God Really Exist or is the Notion of a God a figment of our Imagination

Yes.

[Johnnie Cake]

2 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

I know that the Holy Ghost exists. I have met him, but it was not a "warm tingly feeling."

Ummm..OK

2 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

So, what evidence do you have that there is no God?

Because there is no evidence for such a being...life with a god or without a god happens the exact same irrespective...if there is no impact there must not be a god.  Were I to use the trite spaghetti monster theory invisibly floating in the sky behind Jupiter that controls both your life and mine...can you show me evidence that there is no spaghetti monster floating invisablyin the sky behind Jupiter? Of course you can't

2 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

 

What evidence do you have that this universe happened by accident?

Accident? I would never use the word accident.  More of a random event event.  The mere existence of the Universe and our planet is proof of its existance

2 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

We all have the same facts before us, pretty much. So we are left with the interpretation of facts. There are intelligent people on both sides of this question. Are only skeptics able to interpret the facts correctly?

Glenn

But there is nothing to show the existence of a god...

 

[Guest]

I know God exists, and I see evidence in almost everything. My imagination is not so great to conjure up God. There have been times in my life where angry and rebellious where I wanted to deny his existence for the sake of convience, or rather sacrifice him on the altar of convience, but always an Angel stayed y hand. 

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

hile once a firm believer in God I now tend to fall on the agnostic side of this question.  I see absolutely no evidence that a god exists.  Despite Elder Oaks recent comments that the LDS version of God saved the 3 Mormon Missionaries from the most sever impacts of the bomb blast in Brussels, I merely see it as the lucky consequences of a random event.  Being in the right place to withstand the impact while others were not so lucky.  How exactly did the LDS God impact the results of this blast.  And if He did somehow save the missionaries...what an *** for not saving the 35 who where killed.  How do you worship such a being who puts the needs of 3 above the lives of the 35.  To me it is just an example of Oaks confirmation bias.  He believes in a God so he sees this random event as the consequences of God.

I could go on with example after example...but just being honest...other than the human induced chemical endorphins in the human mind that create warm tingling feelings un-unique to Mormon's, what evidence is there of the kind of God Mormon worship? I can't see any.

For Oaks, the survival of 4 missionaries (yes 4) merely confirms his bias, while his statement merely confirms your bias.  So much for his and your omniscience, and the absence of any real evidence either way.

Also, an absolute god must always prevent any suffering, wrong, or death, or he cannot be god.  All is random and mechanical.  No logic, but  great bias.

[Johnnie Cake]

1 hour ago, Boanerges said:

I wouldn't call myself agnostic, but I don't "know" there is a God, either. I think there is, I believe there is, I hope there is. But that God that I think about, believe in, and hope for does not seem to be the same one that others talk about on fast Sunday. This God that I observe (if that's the right word) doesn't seem to help people find lost car keys (wouldn't the all-powerful Creator of the universe have something better to do anyway?) or stop child abuse or Holocausts. I'm not at all sure this God hears any prayers, much less answer them. But I do believe this didn't all "just happen" and I hope our God does care about us. If there is indeed an afterlife, I shall know - and if there isn't I guess I'll never know because "ever" will have been a rather short period of time. In the meantime, Jesus Christ asked us to believe, and I do believe - and I am content with that.

I too hope there is...I just don't believe there is and nothing in my life so far has demonstrated to me that a god exists outside of my own conscience...

[Johnnie Cake]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

How are chemical endorphins induced by humans? Am I doing it now? If you can do it, why aren't you doing it now?

http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/endorphins2.htm

[JLHPROF]

It's simple.  You know God exists not by observation of HIM but by observation of his actions.

The atheist explains them away as coincidence.
The agnostics says you can't know for sure.
The faithful smiles and says, yes, that was God.

Purely and issue of perspective.  I have felt too many breezes and gusts to not know the wind is there because I don't see it.
There aren't enough coincidences in the entire world to explain all the actions of God, not even in my own life.

[Johnnie Cake]

9 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

For Oaks, the survival of 4 missionaries (yes 4) merely confirms his bias, while his statement merely confirms your bias.  So much for his and your omniscience, and the absence of any real evidence either way.

Also, an absolute god must always prevent any suffering, wrong, or death, or he cannot be god.  All is random and mechanical.  No logic, but  great bias.

yes there were 4 missionaries that escaped the total effects of the bomb... and I'm going to put you down for believing that God saved them while allowing the other 35 to die...would that be correct Robert?

Edited April 28, 2016 by Johnnie Cake

[Robert F. Smith]

Just now, Johnnie Cake said:

I too hope there is...I just don't believe there is and nothing in my life so far has demonstrated to me that a god exists outside of my own conscience...

All one can do is stand by his own beliefs and be true to them.  An unexamined faith is not worth having.  However, giving your personal POV absolute status is probably unwise.  If you don't kow, then you are an agnostic.  That is a status of uncertainty.

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, Boanerges said:

I wouldn't call myself agnostic, but I don't "know" therte is a God, either. I think there is, I believe there is, I hope there is. But that God that I think about, believe in, and hope for does not seem to be the same one that others talk about on fast Sunday. This God that I observe (if that's the right word) doesn't seem to help people find lost car keys (wouldn't the all-powerful Creator of the universe have something better to do anyway?) or stop child abuse or Holocausts. I'm not at all sure this God hears any prayers, much less answer them. But I do believe this didn't all "just happen" and I hope our God does care about us. If there is indeed an afterlife, I shall know - and if there isn't I guess I'll never know because "ever" will have been a rather short period of time. In the meantime, Jesus Christ asked us to believe, and I do believe - and I am content with that.

This.  I feel that many have been slammed or misunderstood when we say..I believe in God..just not the Mormon God.  Of course, if he is there..he is the same God..just believed differently.  But when we think that God perhaps saved three missionaries from a bombing...and then a week or two later..one dies on bicycle.. there is no miracle in all of this.  You feel Him..and then like me, ask "Where Did You Go?"...I believe in God but I believed in a lot of things that turned out not to be true.  I am tending to change my belief into a hope.

Edited April 28, 2016 by Jeanne

[Johnnie Cake]

6 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

All one can do is stand by his own beliefs and be true to them.  An unexamined faith is not worth having.  However, giving your personal POV absolute status is probably unwise.  If you don't kow, then you are an agnostic.  That is a status of uncertainty.

Only I can attach God to my life's experience or not.  I can see god's involvement or I can explain life's experiences in other non-god ways...but ultimately it is me who is doing the attaching.  Case in point...when I prayed to god to know the church was true...was it god who caused my bosom to burn or was it my over riding desire to know it was true that allowed my own body to create a heighten experience within my body.  At one time I believe it was the former, now I tend to go with the latter.

[Analytics]

4 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

If you're looking for "cause to believe," based on a sincere desire to believe....

That's where I'm screwed.  I have a sincere desire to know the truth.

[Mystery Meat]

32 minutes ago, Analytics said:

That's where I'm screwed.  I have a sincere desire to know the truth.

That is where you are screwed, I agree. You will never "know" the truth except by embracing the uncertainty and exercising faith. Only under those circumstances will your uncertainty grow into knowledge.