Who is God

[stemelbow]

Some atheist friend and I were talking the other day.  A nice enough fellow if you ask me. 

Says he, "I don't believe there's a god because no one has proven she exists." 

"Fine enough" says I, "I doubt there is anything I'll ever say to convince you there's a god". 

"But, the issue is, if you believe in God" says he, "you have the obligation to prove he exists"

"but you said she before"

"He/she you can't prove God exists."

"guess not.  Let me get the check"

"hold on. don't run from this.  Why do you believe there's a god?  Why not believe in other absurd propositions?  Like elves, or Santy Clause?"

"I've never had reason to believe these other propositions."

"But what's your reason for belief in God?"

"That something's working it from the outside.  Religion tries to tell me why or how there's is working from the outside but I can't seem to even pin down the why or how, myself.  I realize there's possibility that no one's working it from the outside--that somehow bang things were set in motion and here we are.  I guess its possible that with all the seemingly infinite possibilities of that which sprang into existence from the bang, came life-came us.  But then again, I guess it's possible that there was more purpose to it."

"But then god made it appear he did not do it.  Why he do that?"

"Apparently it was important for us, that it happened that way.  That we must live our lives in some weird darkness to make it meaningful to us."

"well it's all a delusion.  You can't prove your beliefs, I can prove that which drives me." 

"if God, what would you expect as proof?  If God is outside our ability to prove, because he is either the author of what we've nailed down as science or He is the one who works within it's parameters to make mortality work for us, what could a believer possibly provide?  It seems to me elves aren't thought to exist because there's no evidence for them, but they also aren't a concept that runs it all, like God.  If God is there and will not show Himself or prove Himself to us, then there's never to be a convincing argument for he who doesn't believe."

"Then belief is delusion.  It's nothing more than that.  It's guesswork and fantasy.  It means nothing to us.  and it's caused tons of problems."

He went on to discuss if there is a god, then he is the author of all of these bad things.  I retorted, that God may not have authored these bad things.  They just are.  That god works within rules and regulations that we simply don't know.  And he remained as unconvinced as ever, of course. 

Years ago I started listening to all these debates between believers and atheists, which debated the existence of God.  Man, in the end, they all seemed pointless.  Last week I brought back up a couple of those debates and skimmed them.  What an endless discussion.  What a trail of unconvincing meanderings.  If you read the comments, someone was likely to say, "man, he blasted William Lane Craig.  Craig had nothing.  Looked stupid"  Or something.  Or the flip, some believer responded in like manner.  But the sum was just ideas bandied about.  I haven't seen anything convincing for God's existence.  I've lost any sense of being emboldened by some particular clever sounding argument.  I don't know what's in my wiring to make Him palatable to me and has caused me to feel almost inherently it seems, like He's there.  I've even tried to escape the notion, tons.  But he's still sitting there, like an old chair left in a dark corner that no one ever throws out.  So what the hell is that?  Am I deluded?  Have we just convinced ourselves because it feels possible?  I'm not sure.

But, with that all said, why is it such an imperative in scripture that we believe god?  Are we all not the same in essence?  Is not God He who favors the atheist just as the Mormon?  'm convinced He must be, else God is not.  if he favors me I'm out. 

[RevTestament]

God is no respecter of persons - all must meet the same criteria.

Jesus met those criteria, so became the only begotten of the Father, and was "favored" of God. Others were not able to perform His miracles until they learned to be like Jesus and follow Him. Joseph Smith also taught these same concepts....but it seems the Church has not fully grasped them.

Cheers Stemelbow

[stemelbow]

9 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

God is no respecter of persons - all must meet the same criteria.

Jesus met those criteria, so became the only begotten of the Father, and was "favored" of God. Others were not able to perform His miracles until they learned to be like Jesus and follow Him. Joseph Smith also taught these same concepts....but it seems the Church has not fully grasped them.

Cheers Stemelbow

Thanks for the thought, rev.  All too often the criteria feel arbitrary and thus meaningless.  Is that so?  Why do some seem so favored in that they have it easy to buy into the criteria (due to the time and circumstance wherein he/she finds him/herself), while the majority do not? 

Edited December 27, 2016 by stemelbow

[cdowis]

48 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

But, with that all said, why is it such an imperative in scripture that we believe god?  Are we all not the same in essence?  Is not God He who favors the atheist just as the Mormon?  'm convinced He must be, else God is not.  if he favors me I'm out. 

God has a Plan for our eternal joy and happiness.  After this mortal life, we then continue to live for eternity, and the type of life we will be living there -- misery vs joy and happiness -- will be determined by our actions here on earth to prepare us for that life.

The scriptures and prophets teach us how to make that preparation and avoid the consequences of the "eternal mistakes" that we make here on earth.

Finally, a knowledge of God can comes through individual effort, so it is no possible to "prove" His existence. This knowledge is a life time journey. Now, He has created a method to attain that certainty that He lives.  

I personally have a certain knowedge that God lives, and that Jesus Christ is our Saviour.

Edited December 27, 2016 by cdowis

[Tacenda]

I think people like my niece who is a Medium helps. Or reading dozens of NDE's also help. The Bible is another I guess. Or miracles beyond belief. These three things help my belief. Of course they all rely on the person being honest but sometimes it goes beyond that. 

[longview]

Thought experiment:  imagine if earth and the universe did not have God overseeing the "creation/organizing" process, would earth have its many amazing phenomena?   Such as relatively gentle weather (as contrasted with Venus, the giant planets, large moons) or an abundance/variety of elements near the surface or the benefits of earth's moon.  Don't just blandly follow the "narrative" of ivory tower people.  Consider:

Alma 30:44

44 But Alma said unto him: Thou hast had signs enough; will ye tempt your God? Will ye say, Show unto me a sign, when ye have the testimony of all these thy brethren, and also all the holy prophets? The scriptures are laid before thee, yea, and all things denote there is a God; yea, even the earth, and all things that are upon the face of it, yea, and its motion, yea, and also all the planets which move in their regular form do witness that there is a Supreme Creator.

[stemelbow]

8 minutes ago, longview said:

Thought experiment:  imagine if earth and the universe did not have God overseeing the "creation/organizing" process, would earth have its many amazing phenomena?   Such as relatively gentle weather (as contrasted with Venus, the giant planets, large moons) or an abundance/variety of elements near the surface or the benefits of earth's moon.  Don't just blandly follow the "narrative" of ivory tower people.  Consider:

Alma 30:44

44 But Alma said unto him: Thou hast had signs enough; will ye tempt your God? Will ye say, Show unto me a sign, when ye have the testimony of all these thy brethren, and also all the holy prophets? The scriptures are laid before thee, yea, and all things denote there is a God; yea, even the earth, and all things that are upon the face of it, yea, and its motion, yea, and also all the planets which move in their regular form do witness that there is a Supreme Creator.

It doesn't matter if it "would"  it is if it "could".  And if there is no God and earth is as it is, then the answer is yes. 

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

............................................................................   

He went on to discuss if there is a god, then he is the author of all of these bad things.  I retorted, that God may not have authored these bad things.  They just are.  That god works within rules and regulations that we simply don't know.  And he remained as unconvinced as ever, of course. 

..........................................................................

But, with that all said, why is it such an imperative in scripture that we believe god?  Are we all not the same in essence?  Is not God He who favors the atheist just as the Mormon?  'm convinced He must be, else God is not.  if he favors me I'm out. 

At least in the West, nearly all such debate takes place in the context of normative Judeo-Christian-Muslim theology, which posits a god who is the Uncaused Cause of Everything, the only necessary being, and all else being merely contingent.  in view of such premises, it is entirely reasonable for an atheist to assert that god is absurd and illogical.  It is only when we step outside that Hellenistic systematic theology that we can posit a very different sort of god, one who is part of time & space, and who is obedient to natural law -- the humanist god claimed by Mormonism, which is by the way the biblical god.  Add to that our existence as coeternal with god (as necessary as he is) and we can rightly see ourselves as the genus and species of the gods.  No logical assault on such a god-concept is possible.

As to science, we can also posit that a god (or gods -- advanced sentient beings) is needed to account for our earth, solar system, and universe as both stable and "fine-tuned" in order to make life possible.  https://cosmosmagazine.com/physics/a-universe-made-for-me-physics-fine-tuning-and-life?ref=yfp .  See especially Geraint Lewis and Luke Barnes, A Fortunate Universe: Life in a Finely Tuned Cosmos (Cambridge University Press, 2016).

[bluebell]

I think that people must exercise some level of faith to be able to have experiences with God.  They have to be open to Him in some way.

I think this experience of an atheist who became Catholic illustrates what I mean.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/mark-judge/acclaimed-atheist-poet-becomes-catholic-my-tears-just-dried

 

 

[stemelbow]

18 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think that people must exercise some level of faith to be able to have experiences with God.  They have to be open to Him in some way.

I think this experience of an atheist who became Catholic illustrates what I mean.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/mark-judge/acclaimed-atheist-poet-becomes-catholic-my-tears-just-dried

 

 

I wouldn't disagree with you, but in terms of the debate that supposedly has raged, that is problematic reasoning.  On this position, one assumes God and then all positive "experiences" proves his existence.  But, I question if there's any other way to really arrive at the conclusion there is a God. 

[stemelbow]

48 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

At least in the West, nearly all such debate takes place in the context of normative Judeo-Christian-Muslim theology, which posits a god who is the Uncaused Cause of Everything, the only necessary being, and all else being merely contingent.  in view of such premises, it is entirely reasonable for an atheist to assert that god is absurd and illogical.  It is only when we step outside that Hellenistic systematic theology that we can posit a very different sort of god, one who is part of time & space, and who is obedient to natural law -- the humanist god claimed by Mormonism, which is by the way the biblical god.  Add to that our existence as coeternal with god (as necessary as he is) and we can rightly see ourselves as the genus and species of the gods.  No logical assault on such a god-concept is possible.

As to science, we can also posit that a god (or gods -- advanced sentient beings) is needed to account for our earth, solar system, and universe as both stable and "fine-tuned" in order to make life possible.  https://cosmosmagazine.com/physics/a-universe-made-for-me-physics-fine-tuning-and-life?ref=yfp .  See especially Geraint Lewis and Luke Barnes, A Fortunate Universe: Life in a Finely Tuned Cosmos (Cambridge University Press, 2016).

It is true, the LDS view brings a different flavor to God that often puts the rest many accepted criticisms of the Judeo-Christian-Muslim God.  I like that.  I struggle seeing the fine-tuning you mention, and the above mentioned Craig, often relies on as adequate evidence for God.  But in another sense I can pass it off as, "hey whatever floats your boat".  Fine-tuning seems to assume God, rather than posit any evidence for Him.  Why is there fine-tuning?  Well it must be God, how else could it be?  Not sure that works, since existence is so big we can't account for life not living elsewhere. 

[Meadowchik]

Maybe that "great big chair" is actually a projection of your self-awareness. You know you're you and that you're not everything else. And so you're brain calls that combined set God.

But that doesn't preclude God's existence

I believe God is perfectly truthful and perfectly loving, so that hedges my bet nicely.

All kidding aside, my experiences lead me to live in faith in God and His Son, Jesus Christ. 

Edited December 27, 2016 by Meadowchik

[bluebell]

15 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I wouldn't disagree with you, but in terms of the debate that supposedly has raged, that is problematic reasoning.  On this position, one assumes God and then all positive "experiences" proves his existence.  But, I question if there's any other way to really arrive at the conclusion there is a God. 

Debates on the topic can be entertaining but they are ultimately useless.  Only the Spirit can testify to someone that there is a God.  I don't believe that reason along can convince anyone.  Not because a belief in God is unreasonable but because other explanations can seem just as reasonable without the Spirit to help. 

[bluebell]

11 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

All kidding aside, my experiences lead me to live in faith in God and His Son, Jesus Christ. 

Me too.  For me, this is what it all comes down to.

[waveslider]

I think the atheist has the burden of proof to disprove that there is a God, because there are many places, and dimensions, that man has not looked for Him yet, nor even thought to look for Him yet, so how can they be so sure that there isn't a God that exists at least somewhere. An agnostic position, on the other hand, makes it fair that the burden of proof be upon the believer to prove that God exists and makes for a much better discussion on the matter.

That said, there are plenty of things that denote there is a God, unfortunately people often want to believe what they want to believe, even with a plethora of factual evidence that points to it being a false belief. I think if science can ever create life from scratch, in replication of what God has done, then perhaps I might listen to their arguments with a little more open mindedness. Life is far too complicated for science to ever discover how it originated, since science doesn't even look into the spiritual dimensions to find evidence for anything.

Tell your friend to watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00vBqYDBW5s&t=15s and then to watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPkBEYsG6EQ&t=68s

I think anyone who still believes they are atheist in light of all the proof that shows that chance couldn't have produced what we have now, is going to be a waste of time tying to convince them otherwise, unless they at least move towards being agnostic at the very least.

As for me, I need no proof. I have been able to have two way communication with God and our Savior. I know that they both live and are divine. Factual evidence fails in comparison to that divine communication. It just doesn't allow me to prove it to anyone else.

[JLHPROF]

4 hours ago, stemelbow said:

why is it such an imperative in scripture that we believe god?  Are we all not the same in essence?  Is not God He who favors the atheist just as the Mormon?  'm convinced He must be, else God is not.  if he favors me I'm out.

Again with the notion of "favoring".
It's natural consequences, not favoring.

The natural consequence of understanding more about God is more closeness to God, more similarity to God, and more understanding of how God's creations operate.
God doesn't punish the atheist.  The atheist just doesn't know God and cannot receive the positive consequences.
God loves the atheist just as much as the Mormon.  But the more light you accept, the more blessings will be yours.  The more light you reject, the less blessings you can receive.

[waveslider]

I don't know what happened to the links above. I will try to resubmit them, but if it doesn't work then you will just have to copy and paste them:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00vBqYDBW5s&t=15s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPkBEYsG6EQ&t=68s

 

[Teancum]

3 hours ago, cdowis said:

God has a Plan for our eternal joy and happiness.  After this mortal life, we then continue to live for eternity, and the type of life we will be living there -- misery vs joy and happiness -- will be determined by our actions here on earth to prepare us for that life.

The scriptures and prophets teach us how to make that preparation and avoid the consequences of the "eternal mistakes" that we make here on earth.

Finally, a knowledge of God can comes through individual effort, so it is no possible to "prove" His existence. This knowledge is a life time journey. Now, He has created a method to attain that certainty that He lives.  

I personally have a certain knowedge that God lives, and that Jesus Christ is our Saviour.

yet your comments and testimony did nothing to really work through the ideas Stem brings up in his very thoughtful opening post.

Religion cannot prove God exists.  Religion does and always has relied in faith as well as some sort of feeling or metaphysical experience to connect with the divine. The cynic argues that this is all religion has and in many ways the cynic is correct.

This is true of all brands of Christianity, Islam, Buddhist, Greek mythical Gods and so on and on and on etc.   Any religions that claims a divine other that cannot be shown through empirical evidence is caught is this cycle and it is an honest dilemma for many thinking folks.  And for other thinking folks it is not a dilemma but a belief that God, whatever and whomever this God is, wants it that way.  Yet I agree that the claimer of the divine should have the burden of proving the divine through evidence.  Others disagree and believe the only way to connect with divine truth is through some sort of spiritual experience.  Yet we know that there are myriads of people who have claimed god has spoken to their spirits it ways that would conflict with the experiences of others.  And in many cases both cannot be true.

Non believers cannot prove God does not exist because you cannot prove a negative.  Believers look to many things as evidence that a higher power exists.  Some of those arguments at least for me are compelling,   Others not so much. 

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Debates on the topic can be entertaining but they are ultimately useless.  Only the Spirit can testify to someone that there is a God.  I don't believe that reason along can convince anyone.  Not because a belief in God is unreasonable but because other explanations can seem just as reasonable without the Spirit to help. 

The use of them can be effective.  I've listened to tons to help me understand my own thoughts on the matter.  To help me better articulate ideas and share in conversation.  SO I wouldn't call them useless, but I think I get where you're coming from.  But you outline my issue.  People don't believe.  Yet, belief is set up as the premium, essential need in life, at least it seems so in scripture.  What of those who just can't bring themselves to believe?  God leads them in their unbelief?  I'd think so. 

[stemelbow]

 

36 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Again with the notion of "favoring".
It's natural consequences, not favoring.

The natural consequence of understanding more about God is more closeness to God, more similarity to God, and more understanding of how God's creations operate.
God doesn't punish the atheist.  The atheist just doesn't know God and cannot receive the positive consequences.
God loves the atheist just as much as the Mormon.  But the more light you accept, the more blessings will be yours.  The more light you reject, the less blessings you can receive.

I would suggest it possible and likely that many an atheist has accepted more light than many a Mormon in many ways.  That's one issue I'd have with what you had said.  But the bigger issue is the favoring one.  How is it not seen as a favor of a person to born in our modern day in a Mormon home over one born in 2000 BC on a remote island without any understanding or concept of God?  There is no natural consequence that I see in it. 

[waveslider]

2 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I would suggest it possible and likely that many an atheist has accepted more light than many a Mormon in many ways.

I don't believe that for one moment. If it was an agnostic you are talking about I would agree, but an atheist has an ignorant view point IMO. My post above explains why I think this

46 minutes ago, waveslider said:

I think the atheist has the burden of proof to disprove that there is a God, because there are many places, and dimensions, that man has not looked for Him yet, nor even thought to look for Him yet, so how can they be so sure that there isn't a God that exists at least somewhere. An agnostic position, on the other hand, makes it fair that the burden of proof be upon the believer to prove that God exists and makes for a much better discussion on the matter.

 

[stemelbow]

4 minutes ago, waveslider said:

I don't believe that for one moment. If it was an agnostic you are talking about I would agree, but an atheist has an ignorant view point IMO. My post above explains why I think this

 

By virtue of them being atheists they simply can't have accepted light at all?  Is light only given on the acknowledgement of God or the possibility of God? 

[JLHPROF]

14 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

 

I would suggest it possible and likely that many an atheist has accepted more light than many a Mormon in many ways.  That's one issue I'd have with what you had said.  But the bigger issue is the favoring one.  How is it not seen as a favor of a person to born in our modern day in a Mormon home over one born in 2000 BC on a remote island without any understanding or concept of God?  There is no natural consequence that I see in it.

Mormonism accepts premortality.

It is foolish to believe our post-mortal existence is determined by our mortal existence but that our pre-mortal existence has no bearing on our lives in mortality.
It is also doctrinally evidenced in the fall of the 1/3 part of the hosts of heaven.  Their premortal actions prevented their even gaining a mortal existence.
It is also scriptural (Abraham and the noble and great ones, Joseph Smith and the priesthood birthright in D&C 86).
This is not favor, but a result of our choices.

Being born in a modern day Mormon home under priesthood blessing versus being born on a remote island without any concept of God are natural consequences.  Of our pre-mortal choices.  However we all will have the opportunity in either this life or the next to progress by accepting the gospel.  But not all will enter the next life at the same progression either.  Joseph Smith clearly taught that those who accept the gospel in this life will have an advantage over those who accept it in the world to come.

It is a false notion that all men come to earth exactly equal in the gospel.  Just as false as the notion that we will all be in the same condition in the next life would be.

 

Edited December 27, 2016 by JLHPROF

[stemelbow]

5 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Mormonism accepts premortality.

It is foolish to believe our post-mortal existence is determined by our mortal existence but that our pre-mortal existence has no bearing on our lives in mortality.
It is also doctrinally evidenced in the fall of the 1/3 part of the hosts of heaven.  Their premortal actions prevented their even gaining a mortal existence.

So the explanation goes back to the notion of neutrality in the pre-mortal world means they had lesser existences in mortality type of stuff?  I thought that rather theoretical.  BY keeping our first estate, it seems you are suggesting the keeping of it was done to varying degrees.  Meaning some just barely made the cut and stuff.  How would we know that? 

5 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

 

It is also scriptural (Abraham and the noble and great ones, Joseph Smith and the priesthood birthright in D&C 86).
This is not favor, but a result of our choices.

But our memories are wiped of that previous world.  We have no idea if someone in a lesser condition here was less valiant in a pre-mortal world.  It's guesswork, it seems to me.  And wouldn't coming to earth be a new start?  give people more of a chance? 

5 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Being born in a modern day Mormon home under priesthood blessing versus being born on a remote island without any concept of God are natural consequences.  Of our pre-mortal choices.  However we all will have the opportunity in either this life or the next to progress by accepting the gospel.  But not all will enter the next life at the same progression either.  Joseph Smith clearly taught that those who accept the gospel in this life will have an advantage over those who accept it in the world to come.

It is a false notion that all men come to earth exactly equal in the gospel.  Just as false as the notion that we will all be in the same condition in the next life would be.

 

except, "Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life" thus seemingly put to bed the notion that pre-mortal life degree of faithfulness effects our condition on earth. 

[waveslider]

10 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

By virtue of them being atheists they simply can't have accepted light at all?  Is light only given on the acknowledgement of God or the possibility of God? 

The atheist is completely close minded, believing that there is no way that God exists, period. How much light does anyone receive without first being open to it? The light comes from God, being closed off to the possibility of God existing at all is like closing you eyes when someone turns on a light and complaining that they still can't see.