Emperical Faith in God

[VH]

People have faith in many things that they cannot see, not only because science tells us that these things exist, but because we can see the effects of them and feel their presence, even if we were not always aware of them.

We have faith that air exists, not because we can see the air, but because we can see the effect it has on the grass, leaves, our clothes. We can feel it when it moves around us. However, there was a time when man just took these things for granted and had no concept of air, thinking only that the wind was an entity all unto itself and that there was nothing if there was no wind - before philosophers 'discovered' it.

We have faith that gravity exists, not because we can see gravity, but because we can see the effect it has on falling objects, objects at rest, running water. We can feel it when we jump, fall, and swing. However, there was a time when man just took these things for granted and had no concept of gravity - before science 'discovered' it.

We have faith that germs exists, not because we can see microbal life, but because we can see the effect they have on things like mold and mildew, in peatree dishes, and on our bodies. We can feel the effects when these germs make us sick. However, there was a time when man just assumed these things to be curses - before medicine 'discovered' them.

And yet...

When I tell people I believe in God because I can see the effect He has on things (no matter how clearly I can point them out), and because I can feel His presence (which millions of people have described in exact detail the same feelings), some people are under the impression that I'm crazy.

 

[Feelings]

It's not a fair analogy. The threshold of scientific proof is a much higher than the threshold of evidence you are relying on to believe in God.

Yes, it is possible that one day science may evolve to a point where the existence of God can be proven, but the logic doesn't follow that just because that possibility exists then it will be realized.

 

[PeaceSeeker]

They laughed at Galileo for his ideas, but he went on to write a great song
Don't let the non-believers get under your skin. Different people are at different levels of consciousness and spiritual evolution.

 

[bickelz]

When I tell people I believe in God because I can see the effect He has on things (no matter how clearly I can point them out), and because I can feel His presence (which millions of people have described in exact detail the same feelings), some people are under the impression that I'm crazy.

This guy I know told me this theory that God takes place in whatever we cannot explain at that time. God is an idea that fills a void of undiscovered knowledge.

 

[VH]

It's not a fair analogy. The threshold of scientific proof is a much higher than the threshold of evidence you are relying on to believe in God.

Yes, it is possible that one day science may evolve to a point where the existence of God can be proven, but the logic doesn't follow that just because that possibility exists then it will be realized.

I'm not holding God to a scientific model in this statement. I'm holding God to the same empirical model that ordinary people use to validate the existance of air, gravity, and germs. Obviously, science hasn't caught up to the existance of God, but that's not my assertion here, just that I can be aware of something that I can't physically see. People have faith that air, gravity, and germs exist, but no one has ever seen any of these things.

 

[acd]

We can predict the effect gravity will have on an object.
We don't have faith that these things exist.
They are natural phenomenon and the observations are repeatable.

God is supernatural... and therefore unobservable. Science could never 'catch up' to prove that something that is not a natural phenomenon exists.
There are many religions on the planet, and each with it's own sects and other numerous sub sects.
And they all assume they are right. There is nothing to observe, as experiences vary from individuals and the sects that they form.
I don't doubt that you and those of similar faith have had similar experiences anymore than a coven of witches have had the same experiences... or a group of devout Catholics who have all seen the Virgin Mary in the sky. People co-create and share meaning.

And if science could 'catch up' enough to prove God exists?
Wouldn't that negate the necessity of faith?
I've wanted to believe in God and said, "I'll believe if I can know" but knowing doesn't seem to be the nature of religion.

 

[Detective Conan]

When I tell people I believe in God because I can see the effect He has on things (no matter how clearly I can point them out), and because I can feel His presence (which millions of people have described in exact detail the same feelings), some people are under the impression that I'm crazy.

This paragraph reminds me of the play Equus, but not for any negative reasons (just clarifying that to avoid misinterpretations).

I honestly think the reaction you'll get from others when you share these feelings depends on the reasons you offer. I noticed that, unlike your statements regarding air, gravity, and germs (two of which we can see; we can see air when a temperature difference is present, and we can see germs through a microscope), you didn't give examples of what effect you believe God has and what things He affects. If you could, then that would probably allow us to better understand your position and why people might think you're crazy (I say that with a light heartedness, btw ).

Also, you should probably keep in mind the attitudes you receive from others is not uncommon in human history. People who hold different beliefs or claim to experience 'the impossible' (that's the best term I can label the category with) are typically deemed ill in some form or another (mentally, physically, both, and sometimes demonically). In some cases, this form of labeling tends to help the people in question. In almost every case, people are alienated. It's unfortunate to be on the other side of this, to be the one accused of being crazy or too different.

I have a lot of other thoughts on this subject buzzing around my head right now. If I can get them organized, I might come back to post them.

 

[VH]

I have a lot of other thoughts on this subject buzzing around my head right now. If I can get them organized, I might come back to post them.

Please do.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

The very fact that things, including ourselves exist is evidence of either one of two things:

1. That the universe is uncaused and exists by neccessity.

2. The the universe is caused and therefore some other being exists by neccessity. (Usually called God).


There is no compelling scientific evidence for either case - and so people either have to believe that there is a God, or there isn't. And this belief is truly belief, without evidence.

As for other 'proofs' miracles, extraordinary providence (ie. more than coincidence), spiritual inspiration/illumination, etc. of God's existence - they certainly are not predictable, nor subject to scientific scruitiny - and if the existence of such divine interventions be noted, it will always be less than entirely compelling. For some reason, granting the existence of God, faith is prefered over certain knowledge.

 

[Feelings]

I see. So long ago, people would feel the wind and know that there was something there, without understanding wind or air on scientific level. People would see mold without understanding it on a biological science level. People would see things fall via gravity, and not understand that objects are attracted to one another based on mass.

So hypothetically you could see a ghost, and know that there is something there because you can see it, but not understand why it's there, how it works, exactly what the entity's purpose is, how it got there, etc.

And you're saying that you observe God, but you don't really comprehend the specific workings of God like a scientist understands mold. Again, the analogy isn't great because I don't think you observe God in as direct a way as people observe the physical phenomenons you've listed as examples. I think it would be easier to understand you if you explained exactly what is it that you observe that you attribute to be God, or clear evidence of the workings of God?

 

[Matariki]

You're not crazy VH. I get people telling me the same thing. I get the comment on a regular basis "You're too smart to be a Christian." Little do they know that I consider my knowledge to be a gift from God. Science has its limitations, and proving or disproving the supernatural is one of them. Science can't do it because its designed to work with what occurs naturally and what can be replicated, manipulated or analyzed by natural means in a natural environment. You can't do that with God. God is beyond nature, he created it, therefore he is higher. An individual can only go by faith on such matters. Using science to disprove or prove God is like trying to fix a car a with a hammer, you probably could, but its not ideally the right tool for the job and like science it will have its limitations in how much it can do. Unless you are an extremely talented mechanic, most people will not be able to do it and say that its unfixable. However lets not forget the fact that its easier to break a car using a hammer than to fix it. The same goes for Science and God. Believing God is more based on a priority on who you want to put first and foremost in authority over your life. For those that believe, this isn't a 'cop out' to abandon your responsibilities as an individual, but to be in submission. Humans are designed to serve and its our choice on what or who we choose, this includes serving ourselves. Its a matter of who and what you put your trust, your time, and your emotions, spiritual and logical intellect into.

Yes, you can know if God exists but its not through science.

 

[Haven]

They laughed at Galileo for his ideas, but he went on to write a great song
Don't let the non-believers get under your skin. Different people are at different levels of consciousness and spiritual evolution.

Don't let believers get under your skin.

 

[Matariki]

Don't let believers get under your skin.

 

[PeaceSeeker]

Don't let believers get under your skin.

Actually it's the believers that can be the most annoying haha

 

[Lark]

Its never been more difficult to believe in God and that has its own momentum, so people will say they dont or find it incredible that others do and find it easier, that's a relatively recent development though and there was a time that people found the reverse to be true (or so it seems from Bertrand Russell's writings and just how much and how often he felt compelled to put it on the record that he was an athiest and couldnt be persuaded otherwise).

Was a time people were able to say they were convinced of the existence of God because they were able to see their own reflection and see others and know that these were the image of God, although that is taken to be a metaphor now or simply dated musings by the terrified minds of primitive people. I dont think its a metaphor, the bible and world religions are not mistaken humanism (great and all as humanism is within its boundaries), I also dont believe that people in the past were such fools, that is modern day conceit to believe that.

 

[Jungian Trip]

I think you're confusing empirical proof with anecdotal evidence.

There are many ways one can interpret the natural world and none of them require believing that a divine being created any of this. Because we anthropomorphize almost everything, it seems counter-intuitive to humans that anything which appears to have order can come about by evolutionary, natural forces. We see a car because someone made a car, a skyscraper because it was built by people. Therefore many people, particularly those without an understanding of evolutionary biology, geology, oceanography, etc. will assume that nature must have a maker.

However, there is no option for us to see anything other than order for in order for humans to perceive the world there must first be something orderly to perceive.

When people appeal to the order of nature, they are engaging in what Douglas Adams referred to as "Puddle Thinking":

"Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, "This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!" This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise."

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

Science creates models to organise observed phenomena.

Is God just a model?

The very fact that things, including ourselves exist is evidence of either one of two things:

1. That the universe is uncaused and exists by neccessity.

2. The the universe is caused and therefore some other being exists by neccessity. (Usually called God).


There is no compelling scientific evidence for either case - and so people either have to believe that there is a God, or there isn't. And this belief is truly belief, without evidence.

lol @ thinking this is a scientific question

There are many ways one can interpret the natural world and none of them require believing that a divine being created any of this. Because we anthropomorphize almost everything, it seems counter-intuitive to humans that anything which appears to have order can come about by evolutionary, natural forces. We see a car because someone made a car, a skyscraper because it was built by people. Therefore many people, particularly those without an understanding of evolutionary biology, geology, oceanography, etc. will assume that nature must have a maker.

God is not anthropomorphic; man, like anything, was made in God's image.

All that exists is: a) God, or the Original Cause, and b) the Image of God, the caused world

Read some Spinoza for a purely theoretical explanation. - a link between philosophy and theology.

 

[Jungian Trip]

Science creates models to organise observed phenomena.

Is God just a model?

So God would be a "model" organized by theologians, creators of religion, etc?

In what ways might God be considered to be observed?

Do you suggest that God is perhaps a natural phenomenon, but is impersonal (pantheism/panentheism/deism)?

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

So God would be a "model" organized by theologians, creators of religion, etc?

In what ways might God be considered to be observed?

Do you suggest that God is perhaps a natural phenomenon, but is impersonal (pantheism/panentheism/deism)?

Not a model that relates to obervations per se, but as far as the notion of God exists in our mind as a concept, it seems plausible that God may indeed merely be a model. It is observed in the sense that everything we experience is observed, and so any model which he use to organise them is based on inferrence from observation.

Do I suggest that God is a natural phenomenon? What is a natural phenomenon? Presumably one that is given to us by means of our Representation. God is the cause of natural phenomena, but is not a natural phenomenon because reality goes beyond this.

 

[PeaceSeeker]

So God would be a "model" organized by theologians, creators of religion, etc?

In what ways might God be considered to be observed?

Do you suggest that God is perhaps a natural phenomenon, but is impersonal (pantheism/panentheism/deism)?

We may not be able to observe god, but we can definitely observe his creations. The universe has waaayyyy too much order and complexity for it all to have been an "accident" ..... or "big bang" as scientists like to call it

But I just hate how God/The Creator seems let so many bad things take place on earth. I hope that divine intervention will put an end to this insanity which is taking place on this planet.

By the way, here's what Al Pacino thinks god is hehehe
Disclaimer: I don't endorse any of what he says, but I find it EXTREMELY amusing

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGR4SFOimlk"]YouTube - ‪Al Pacino Speech on Devil's Advocate‬‏[/ame]