Let me quote this sentence from one of your posts:
“Logic and words aren’t the only medium for understanding, and sometimes not the best one”
I totally agree, Reason is not the only path to knowledege, ro so I beleive. Reason is a very useful tool for some things, i.e. building a motor, programming software… but I think there are other means to knowledege, read about oriental releigions (such as taoism) to know more.
When the starter of this trhead asked if there was a God, I assumed that he/she referred to an antropomorphic God, as usual. Now I think maybe I made a mistake here.
You see, modern physics say that all is energy, say, substance is a form of energy (seeing the results of an atomic explosion, I think I must agree), and there is this principle that tells energy can´t be created or destroyed, it transformates.
So the whole universe could be seen as a unique mass of energy and we´re part of it. Allright I can beleive so.
In some way, the universe itself (and us inside) can be considered as a God (a superior form of existance… well, the universe DOES exist, isn´t it?).
Well, if you want to call the universe “God”, it´s fine with me.
But I don´t beleive the universe is omniscent, no Bible´s god for me.
Of course, I show no disrespect for your beliefs (nor for anybody´s else), do not think otherwise.
You are quite right in what you say, fessie. I’m pretty sure we have a soul, if at no more a level than some force which moves the body around in other than robotic fashion and causes deliberations outside instinct and convention.
Neither am I using a test of the Scriptures as proof of existence of God. But if you are starting from the standpoint of making your litmus test proof of the existence of a semitic model of God (i.e. you’re not open to revealation that it is a Hutu god that is the One True God) then your first point of investigation is not in proof of some greater good or evil nor in the nebulous ‘miracle of nature’ or ‘wonder of science’ but in the texts that have been given for instruction and guidance to the true path.
If you’re coming at your belief in a god of indeterminate origin, unknown purpose and doubtful interest in your doings, then you don’t need to know it is Gospel. You need only to know the extent to which you can know this god, and how important it is to know Him or Her.
Certainly you shouldn’t be charging off insisting in enshrining precepts in legislation or punishing transgressors unless you are sure that the instruction you are taking is sound. A god of nature by contrast might only be telling you to cut the length of your showers and take your own bags when you go shopping.
The experiences across different cultures are due to science.
When something unusual happens it is attributed to god.
There is no proof that God exists. That’s where faith comes in. Without faith, we’d all be doomed to hell. With proof, we would all believe it as fact. God gave us the free will to believe in Him, so go exercise your free will!
There will be a time when everyone believes in Him. For some, it will just be too late…
Anyone ever hear of the band One Bad Pig? Well heres the chorus from one of their songs…
Let’s be frank
Let’s talk straight
Won’t believe 'til they shut hell’s gate
That’s what I mean by being to late. And believe me, you’ll wish you believed.
I have faith that the only hell to which we can be doomed is the hell to which we doom ourselves by believing things we do not know and ceasing to experience and to engage in inquiry. Find God in yourself. She is there.
Exactly how do you show that people who, in a cross-cultural context, have similar experiences about “God” or “the Gods” and that this is due to science? I’m not following your logic on this. Please explain it.
That´s a threat?
When something unusual happens. We think it is because of god.
When there there no scientific explanation or we can’t explain it, is attributed to god. In the Middle Ages. People with illness like plaque or mental illness like split personality, were thought to be a work of the devil. People who got sick were told it because they had sinned or did something wrong. Humans don’t always reason. Many believe in they religious book and noting else. They won’t accept that something is wrong in they religious book. This is the logic.
First, please define unusual. Do you mean something statistically unlikely to happen? Or are you referring to something like a “miracle” which would be an apparent breaking of the laws of physics? Or something else, entirely?
**
Yes, some people do and others do not. It’s not a pan-human trait rely to on the Gods as explanations for that which we can’t explain immediately. One could argue that investigating something that we don’t have an immediate explanation for is the basis of the scientific method.
**
True, back then they often did rely on such explanations. However I could argue that you’re taking those incidents out of context. I think it could be argued that those explanations are as much because of the known science of the time as they were because of the political and religious situation in Europe. I never knew the Devil was responsible for gum disease. 
**
I’ll agree that are a small subset of humans who act in the way you describe, but not all do, unless you can show proof, I’ll say you’re wrong.
And you’ve still not answered my question; how is that ecstatic experiences that are cross-cultural are similar and this is due to science? That seems to be what you’re saying. Otherwise, I’m sorry, I don’t follow what you’re getting at.
And to think that I’ve been missing out on this debate all these weeks…
Unfortunately, that’s not a question that has an actual answer. There is insufficiant evidence to claim that God exists. However, because the common definitions of God indicate a being which transcends things like time, space, and logic, it’s not possible to prove that God doesn’t exist, either.
Me, I take the stance that, untill something can be shown to exist, it would be intellectually dishonest of me to just assume that He/She/It exists.
What experiences are you talking about? Can you provide some cites so we can judge for ourselves?
On preview: I’m with Joe Random.
This is a meaningless question. It might as well be "Does *@#%& exist? “God” is a meaningless term that doesn’t refer to anything in reality. The only rational answer is “Huh?”
Okay, to quickly summarize:
Originally posted by ajfrod
response by Freyr
**
ajfrod’s response:
**
my question back to him was:
**
ajfrod rambled:
**
trying to get back to my point, I said:
**
The evidence I’m showing are the personal, ecstatic experiences people have had throughout all cultures and throughout history. No, they’re not really admissible evidence. I made that clear in my first post. However, taken the commonalities that seem to appear in these experiences and their frequency and diversity, (across cultures and time) it’s hard to catagorize them all as mental aberrations. Therefore, I feel they are indirect evidence of the Gods’ existence.
If you’d like a historical example, look at the life of St. Theresa.
panache45…
Maybe the question should have been “Does the god of your own mind exist?” and then everyone could have said “Yes!” 
I don’t think anyone can deny that people throughout the world and throughout history have had ecstatic experiences, just as they’ve had experiences involving succubi and aliens. However, the experiences, though common in a sense, are also culturally based, and tend to re-enforce whatever god belief exists in the culture. The alien abduction/succubi experience has been demonstrated to be physiological. Might not the ecstatic god experience be also? This is not saying that people having these experiences are aberrant or mentally deficient or deranged - they just interpret a real, internal, experience in terms of their cultures.
I don’t think these experiences are any evidence at all for the existence of gods.
May I just step in again, this time to remind all posters here to remember that in the question of God’s existence, it is not really so much His existence as His relationships if any to mankind and to all that is of concern to mankind.
For example, we can discuss no end about the existence of Bigfoot, but it happens that Bigfoot has no crucial relationships with mankind – unless some people start projecting such relationships, so Bigfoot is just a curiosity.
Since we have already defined God the way we do, the omni of everything positive, and the omni against everything negative, and we have given Him all kinds of favorable human attributes; then it is unavoidable that He would have relationships of the most crucial kinds with mankind.
Those who claim to have an experiential encounter with God, well and good, go forth and do everything that is good to fellowmen; but make sure that you first get their consent before you start your good deeds on them.
For those who cannot see the reasons or the need to accept His existence, go forth also to do good to fellowmen without using God’s name; but again make sure that you get their consent first before you start your good deeds on them.
As for me, I take it for granted that God is around but He is for most of the time playing some kind of hide and seek and making a lot of troubles among His believers thereby. Just the same I subscribe to the first alternative above, and I exercise the utmost autonomy and most critical reason as regards what God expects me to be and to do.
Good luck to everyone.
Susma Rio Sep