in the minds of believers.

While I don't believe god exists in the physical universe, I believe he/she/it is as real to people who believe in god as my love for my wife is.

When I die, that love will survive me for as long as my wife will live. When she dies, some of that love will continue in our kids and maybe a little in our grandkids but after that - it's gone, as if it never existed.

But it did, in our minds. I believe that is how god exists too.

Your post makes me think of the Lee Ann Womack song/video "Something Worth Leaving Behind". I don't know how to post a link.

I will try: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awjH_CqOgX0&ob=av2e

rt, does your love for the wife perform miracles or walk on water or atone for the sins of the world? Does it send others to hell or rain fire and pain on sinful cities? Does it cause asses to talk, giant fishes to swallow prophets or lions to play with them?

Well, that's the kind of belief folks have in god, and something tells me your love is not the same. But perhaps I didn't understand what you mean. ;-)

Jesus Smith Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> rt, does your love for the wife perform miracles
> or walk on water or atone for the sins of the
> world? Does it send others to hell or rain fire
> and pain on sinful cities? Does it cause asses to
> talk, giant fishes to swallow prophets or lions to
> play with them?
>
> Well, that's the kind of belief folks have in god,
> and something tells me your love is not the same.
> But perhaps I didn't understand what you mean. ;-)

That is one concept of God. It isn't the only one or even the only Christian one. You are taking a complex idea with many vaiations and turning it into a Bible literalist, Fundie view. There are plenty of other concepts of God.Just saying that we should not assume the vision of God and religion we were raised with is the only one out there.

Should be "Gods" plural...

Paranoid delusions are real to the people that have them.

Just because one says "they are real to people that have them" does not make anything real or desirable.

That is really insightful! I never thought of that. I'm going to hold on to that piece of wisdom. Thank you for sharing it.

A good bit of wisdom has the beautiful quality of propagating more wisdom the more we examine it. Spot on!

To say that you don't believe God is real "in the physical sense" leaves open, and arguably suggests, that you believe he exists in some other sense. If this is incorrect, you should just leave out the word "physical." If this is correct, then tell us in what sense you believe God exists. Keep in mind that you have to explain what kind of a non-physical entity God is, and presumably such a description will be adequate to establish the properties that encompass the term "God" and give it meaning. For example, you might say that God is a mental being. In any case, you lose the idea of God entirely attempting to equate God with certain human emotions, like love. This sort of mystic interpretation of God is incoherent and nonsensical.

When you say, you believe God is real "to people who believe in god," is simply to say some people believe in God. Saying that "God is real" adds nothing to the existence claim, and attempting to equate God with love is a blatant category mistake. If God does exist, such existence is NOT analogous to the existence of love. One is a supreme being of some sort, and the other is human emotion to be explained neuro-biologically. If belief in God can also to be explained solely neuro-biologically, then the ontological status of God (i.e. his existence) is undermined, not enhanced.

In short, you appear to be confused.

I have been looking at this site for awhile. Utterly fascinating to me to see that some Mormons are able to "see the light" on Joseph Smith and the tremendous con known as the LDS Church! I am sorry, however, that so many "exmo's" are in the dark on God and essentially throw the baby (faith) out with the dirty bath water (the maze of Mormonism). God is real and he wants you to know that. That you are unwilling or unable to see that is probably a continuing result of your previous grievious association with Mormonism. Please start over with God and give him a chance to make Himself real to you! If you seek you will find.

Which god are we supposed to accept upon faith? The one you picked?

Just how do you know what god wants us to know? Oh, you made that up too, right?

Facts work better than faith. Otherwise you've not "seen the light" any more than your fellow Mormon who uses faith to believe what he wants.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/29/2010 11:08PM by dagny.

Well, I will grant you that you make a good point. Which "God" does one choose? Which one is real?

Study. That is where you start. To have knowledge of anything requires lots of study and reflection. Be willing to consider (at least a tiny bit) that God is real. I was not always a believer, but then again, I was not handicapped by Mormonism. How does one get all of that guck out of their head so as to make a fresh start? That is truly a tall order, and not easily accomplished. Honestly, I'd be burned out on God too if I was a Mormon that found out (after much pain and suffering!) that the whole thing is make believe. Maybe it is too soon for you.

Badger John Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well, I will grant you that you make a good point.
> Which "God" does one choose? Which one is real?
>
> Study. That is where you start. To have
> knowledge of anything requires lots of study and
> reflection. Be willing to consider (at least a
> tiny bit) that God is real. I was not always a
> believer, but then again, I was not handicapped by
> Mormonism. How does one get all of that guck out
> of their head so as to make a fresh start? That is
> truly a tall order, and not easily accomplished.
> Honestly, I'd be burned out on God too if I was a
> Mormon that found out (after much pain and
> suffering!) that the whole thing is make believe.
> Maybe it is too soon for you.

If there is a higher power, my guess is he/she probably doesn't care all that much whether you worship him, much less how you do it. If God is all powerful, I can't see why he would care.He should be beyond ego and beyond caring whether you call him Jesus or Zeus. I admit I might be wrong, but then so could the naysayers.

I have studied lots of different religions. What I found was they all made claims but none offered any empirical evidence to back up their claims. I have seen no God based religion that offerers anything that is testable.

Most people who are atheists were not Mormon.

You do realize that your claims are things that cannot be tested, right? It's the same as me asking you to test my claim that there are invisible unicorns.

When you say to "TEST all things" I'm not sure you have the same standard for evidence resulting from the test as people who do not believe. Faith is not a test or tool for testing.

You can present your evidence here and we can "test" it if you honestly think many of us have not considered testing evidence for god. Know that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

And the magic feather made Dumbo fly. Oh wait, it was him all the time.

Badger John,

You're not kidding - it's truly a tall order. I left four years ago and was so shell shocked - SO hesitant to allow myself to ever be duped again. It took FOREVER to allow myself to allow myself to consider that maybe Jesus could really be real?? And I still struggle a bit with wondering that. God wasn't so hard, but I do remember one day at the gym looking around at everyone wondering - "Are we just all on a big ant farm?" Humans who come and go - without any real consequence or purpose??

I couldn't believe how skeptical I'd become.

But 4 years later, I'm finally starting to feel good - like - "Yes," God is real, and I don't think it's just in my mind. I don't know exactly what God is like any more, but that's okay. And if others think there is no God, and that it's just in my imagination, that's okay, too. I'm just going to choose to believe, because there's no way to prove he does or doesn't exist. And to me the benefits of "believing" far outweigh any possible risks.

Paschal's wager

What about Pascal's Wager?

Its a bad wager. Consider the risk of believing in the wrong god. Consider the assumptions made that god wants you to believe. What if he actually thinks the needy people who need a god are not worth saving? What if he doesn't like people who use faith over reason? Consider the cost of having spent your whole existence believing in a fantasy. And the most obvious flaw is that a god would actually be dumb enough not to know you are just believing in him "in case" he exists. A god who would be impressed that you believed based on a wager is not a god I'd want to worship, let alone respect.

dagny Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What about Pascal's Wager?
>
> Its a bad wager. Consider the risk of believing in
> the wrong god. Consider the assumptions made that
> god wants you to believe. What if he actually
> thinks the needy people who need a god are not
> worth saving? What if he doesn't like people who
> use faith over reason? Consider the cost of having
> spent your whole existence believing in a fantasy.
> And the most obvious flaw is that a god would
> actually be dumb enough not to know you are just
> believing in him "in case" he exists. A god who
> would be impressed that you believed based on a
> wager is not a god I'd want to worship, let alone
> respect.


Maybe god doesn't care about any of those things and the benefit of belief comes from the comfort and support it gives you? That is a possibility.As far as your belief being a fantasy, if it turns out that way, you will neever know. If it makes you happy and content, who is to say it is wrong for someone just because it doesn't work for you. It is also possible to belief in some sort of god without giving up critical thinking.

I can agree with you bona dea. The one argument for God that generally I would not refute is that it gives comfort to some.

If someone can admit they simply want to believe something because it makes them feel good - provides comfort - then I don't blame them for wanting to have that comfort.

My reply was actually to laluna who was the one who brought up the wager under your post. I couldn't tell from her comment what he/she thought the wager.

Sorry for the confusion. I think I understand your position. In my view you are defining your own life (purpose) the way you want to live it by being a good person according to what you decide. I can respect that.

There is a bit more to it than that. People go with feelings and experiences which can be right at times.I know this board discounts such things and I do think you have to be careful.Perhaps someone have had a strong spiritual experience or even a NDE which is difficult to explain rationally.If you haven't experienced what they have, it is kind of hard for you to refute it regardless of what your opinion is. The bottom line is it did not happen to you. The fact is you do not know whether there is a higher power any more than anyone else does. What you see as evidence may not be what others see as evidence. BTW, some spiritual experiences can be explained rationally, but others are a bit more difficult to rationalize. Not saying there is no rational explanation and I have never had such an experience, but I cannot crawl into someone else's head and experience what they heard and saw and felt.I am not going to be arrogant enough to assume that every spiritual experience everyone ever had was all in their head or was completely misunderstood by them. I WASN'T THERE AND NEITHER WERE YOU. I am willing to keep an open mind on the existence of a higher power and life after death and not just dismiss it out of hand because you can't prove it in a lab. That may work for you, but it doesn't work for me and that doesn't mean I am not a rational person. Some of us have actually studied religious history, doctrine, Paschal's wager, evolution, etc and still think there just might be something more.

True but...
We know the problems of "personal experience" being translated into factual evidence. It simply doesn't. I can agree it is very significant to the person who has the experience but it has no weight for others unless it can be verified universally externally.

Also, when someone decides to jump to a supernatural cause for a personal experience instead of suspecting a perfectly reasonable explanation that also does not have any value to anyone except the the individual.

The question is why we value one person's supernatural explanation for a personal experience and not that of another. Studying religion is no different than studying Star Trek and relating personal experiences to it.

I agree with you that what is in a person's head is very important to that person but I have no reason to take it seriously since I did not have a similar experience. Even if I did have a similar experience such as an NDE I don't think I would interpret it as life after death evidence since I could explain it well enough without concluding anything religious. We interpret our experiences according to our biases of course. That's why we must have unbiased evidence to arrive at the external reality of of whether or not the claim is likely to be true.

So overall, I'm not disagreeing with you.

Nite everyone!

I'm not talking about a wager.

If I had a child, or a school student who I knew "did the best they could with what they had," I'd be fine with that.

Yes, I'm projecting, I know. But isn't that what we all do to one extent or another?

No amount of proof will ever be able to show any of us, absolutely, whether God exists or not. It's an impossible question.

What I can do is go with what seems to make sense to "me" and not freak out about it, or about other people's view points (I'm not at all saying you are. But obviously, lots of ridiculous people do, causing all kinds of horrible problems).

If I'm believing the "wrong" God and the "right" God is mad at me for not believing correctly, I guess I would have been screwed either way. Because even if I would have believed the "right" God, I"d have a screwball for a God - if that God would make judgements on me for not "guessing correctly."

So I'm just gonna go with my gut, finally have some faith again, love people, appreciate what's good in the world, try to contribute and help people, and believe that there is a higher purpose to our life than just this one, and that there is a positive higher force.

People don't go around testifying that the SUN is real, or that electricity is real, or that bacteria is real. I don't go around telling people that my MOM is real, or that my minivan is real. Anyone can see those things, and/or there is ample evidence that they exist. There is no NEED to even discuss it.

The fact that you can't prove that something (even something invisible) exists casts serious doubt upon it. You can prove that atoms exist. You can prove that gravity exists.

But people who have never seen God or heard God's voice are perfectly willing to testify to others that God is real. They KNOW he's there. They are willing to assign good or bad things that happen in their lives as His will. What IS it that makes them so damn sure about someone who is silent and invisible? And then they tend to get offended if people don't take their word for it. Why do they need to believe and to convince others to believe?

Maybe they are looking for reinforcement? They WANT him to be real, and if other people believe it, too, then they feel validated in their faith?

>>>Maybe they are looking for reinforcement? They WANT him to be real, and if other people believe it, too, then they feel validated in their faith?

Precisely! - and it is easy to overlook the implications of "testifying":

Someone who has genuine faith does not benefit from endlessly talking about it, trying to enlist support and validation from others, etc.

People who have a compulsion to talk about their god exhibit _need_, not _faith_.

Dagny,

Thanks!

And, THANKS for your help in my exit. I remember your name, and some thoughtful posts you listed in response to my almost desperate pleas for insight as I went through the excruciating process of "finding out," trying to make sense of it all, and figuring out how to regroup. I appreciate your comforting, helpful comments!

Imaworkinonit,

I agree with you - the fact of "testifying" or discussing God's existence does validate the fact of possible doubt.

Yep - if we KNEW God was God and saw him with our own two eyes every day, we def. wouldn't be having this conversation.

But I also agree with Bona Dea's post that to some people, they "know" for their own reasons, and since we can't get into their heads and live their experiences, it doesn't at all seem appropriate for me to tell them they're wrong.

I think "Freedom of Belief" is the key here.

And I will say that going from "I KNOW this church is true and I KNOW Joseph Smith is a prophet, etc." to " I feel like God is good and that he / it loves me" has been an adjustment. Never have I seen the "I Knows" as much as in TSCC.

Wow, lots of replies…

@ Jesus Smith: indeed, my love for my wife makes me do certain things and refrain from doing others. It even affects others, emotionally, legally, financially, etc. Admittedly not as grand as the things a god can pull off but the principle is the same.

@ MJ: paranoid delusions are not only real to people who have them, but also to people who treat them, who develop medicines for them, etc. It is not the content of the delusion that I think is real (e.g. the unicorns or the aliens), but the delusion itself.

@ Reed Smith: love and god are both what you call “neuro-biological”; I don’t know what exactly you mean by that term but I guess we’re on the same page when I say that god exists only inside people’s minds, just like the love between two people only exists there. I don’t see the “blatant category mistake”.

@imaworkinonit: I wasn’t testifying; I don’t want to believe god is real; I don’t feel a need to convince anyone, I was just sharing some thoughts. I am perfectly content in saying that god only exists in people’s minds. But there god does in fact exist. You claim you can prove that gravity exists. Well, I for one have never seen gravity, only it’s effects. It’s the same with god. The effects of god’s existence in people’s minds can be observed in the outside world and while they cannot be captured in a neat formula like gravity, there is some logic to them which can be scientifically studied.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/30/2010 12:17PM by rt.

The reason I believe in God is because the first atom/molecular particle did NOT come from NOTHING. With that in mind, you would then ask, "Well then where did God come from?" This is an area where Mormonism fails. Mormonism does not need to explain this paradox, they just place it on the shoulders of the previous Gods before Elohim into infinity's past. So, I believe God created our finite minds with the inability to comprehend the infinite (which is only God). After that, everything else is pretty much unprovable =/. If you see a flaw in my logic let me know :)

Stephen Hawking's "The Grand Design" asserts that god is not necessary to explain the universe. Observable, testable, natural laws do the job just fine.

He doesn't say "There is no God".

(He also doesn't say there are no garden fairies, unicorns, or griffens either.)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/30/2010 01:47PM by Truth Without Fear.

god is love