How is this even remotely a “person-to-person” meeting with God? You felt a presence? The only way I can see that qualifying as “person-to-person” is if you mean yourself in both instances of “person”.
What were you doing when you felt this presence?
godzillatemple
Hello godzillatemple
Sometimes a very general question is harder to answer than a focused one, but if you will I would like you to address the following question. Let me ask (in a friendly way), is this matter, regarding the thread
Just a Little Opinion of Mine about Atheist/Christianity (the OP) now dividing along these line of support.
Side A, There is a God, (because I believe there is)
Side B, There is no God,(because I find no viable evidence to, and/or scientific facts do not, support such existence).
I’m a little confused at the direction the thread has taken as it appears to be (and I know there is no disrespect intended) aimed at a particular person who is willing to express himself here.
Thanks godzillatemple for your time.
I know you were asking godzillatemple for a reply, but I felt I should interject that I’m:
Side C, The existance or non-existance of God is unknowable, and of course there can be no scientific evidence thereof (and therefore I do not spend time worshipping this unknowable being).
I’d be perfectly happy to have Polycarp prove me wrong, but I find his “evidence” totally unrelated to my definition of evidence.
Feel free to pray for my soul, it’s no skin off my back.
Hello, Beryl_Mooncalf!
I’m afraid that I’m not sure what your question actually is. If you’re simply wondering how this thread has devolved away from it’s original topic and now seems to be focused on polycarp, I think it’s because (a) the OP was pretty much answered back on the first page, and (b) polycarp chose to give a detailed account of the experiences that led to his conversion and invited people to comment.
Personally, I have tried very hard to be respectful of polycarp’s beliefs, while at the same time stating that I do not agree with him. And I think that is in line with the OP, which asked why non-believers seem to be condenscending to those who do believe.
As for the current focus of this thread, I don’t really think it’s a matter of whether there is a God or not. Instead, it’s whether it’s rational to believe in God’s existence (rather than, say, a magical pixie in the sky) as a way of explaining the phenomena that certain people have experienced.
I personally feel that there is a perfectly valid, albeit non-rational, reason to believe in the existence of God – it can bring one great comfort in times of need and distress, and can inspire one to become a better person. But at the same time, however, I think any honest skeptic needs to admit that this is the fundamental reason they believe in God, and not try to come up with any logical justifications for that belief. They don’t believe in God because of a deep feeling they had, for example; they believe in God because they choose to ascribe that feeling as coming from God instead of some other, more rational, explanation.
Regards,
Barry
** These two sentences contradict each other. Was Polycarp trying to demonstrate that his decision was rational, or wasn’t he?
If he was, the first sentence is wrong. If he wasn’t, the second sentence is wrong.
Hmmmm… Let me rephrase.
He wasn’t trying to prove the existence of God to anybody. He was merely trying to prove that his decision to believe in God was a rational one, given his experiences.
Better?
Jharmon, YOU STOLE MY POST! Everyone always forgets about the elusive “Option C”, which in my opinion is the only option that makes any sense.
Precisely. And that’s why my seeming hijack – because (IMHO) my own particular, and subjective, experiences make the acceptance of a God in roughly the traditional Orthodox/Anglican understanding of Him the reasonable conclusion. Given that, say, Gaudere has not had my epxerineces (but rather a dream involving a medusa), her choice not to believ is the reasonable one for her, unless she should be convinced by authority or testimony of others that the evidence they present makes God more likely than His absence. And that still will not be “believing in” Him, but rather where I was before my conversion expriences, believing that He exists. (That word “believe” is a tricky little sucker.)
To:
godzillatemple,
Diogenes the Cynic
GodlessSkeptic
ThoM
TVAA
badchad
jharmon
Kalhoun
(and others I.m sure)
And Of course, Polycarp.
All of you have earned my respect for your respectfully, intellectually, responses to what appears to be the minority opinion here. I find it commendable that each of you are cognizant of the rights of others as evidenced by your respectful responses. I hope this becomes the norm. I have modified my previous question, at least mentally, by adding the “option C” as requested.
I have thought the better of making a point for a day or two, but I believe that there is a simple fact, one that is quite possibly fatal to the critical position of God’s existence, that can be made. My problem is where to put the “rational basis” argument that godzillatemple has returned. I guess I have option “D” now.
Side A, There is a God, (because I believe God exists)
Modified per Polycarp’s last post
Side B, There is no God,(because I find no viable evidence to, and/or scientific facts do not, support such existence).
Side C, The existence or non-existence of God is unknowable, and of course there can be no scientific evidence thereof (and therefore I do not spend time worshipping this unknowable being).
(Thank you jharmon, for the option)
and
Side D, Rational basis for belief. A relative of option C probably, but it will stand alone
If the standard of proof is universally understood here, to be clear and convincing, or such that even the most skeptical person would agree that the evidence has changes their mind. Then there is a flaw in the side of those who are critical of God’s existence.
(from the evidentiary point that is)
Proof of a negative fact, such as “There are no flying saucers” is impossible. I could bring a flying saucer before you and allow you to examine it, thereby proving they exist, but what could I bring before you to disprove they exist. Therefore, the possibility of Flying saucers existing remains until one appears, and proves, that they exist. If one never appears, it changes nothing, as the possibility still exists that one could appear somewhere, somehow.
If something exists, the possibility of proving it exists remains until it is proven.
If it does not exist, the possibility of proving it, likewise does not exist. The problem with backing a position that is against a physical item existing, is that the evidence necessary for proof is also non-existent.
This is the case with debating the existence of God. (or really, options B, C and D) Between the two sides, (A vs, B, C, D) those not believing in the existence have adopted a position has the fatal flaw in proving the matter.
The proponents have a possibility of proving that God exists. Their belief is subject to proof in the evidentiary sense, when or as soon as, that proof becomes available. There can be evidence of a existing God, whatever nature it might take, it’s existence is possible.
The critical side, (B, C and D) has supported a side based on the definitions of the sides above, and if they are examined, B fails due to the need to prove a negative fact.
C fails because the possibility remains that God can be discovered and become knowable, (however, the statement re: spending time worshiping is rational in view of Side C’s belief),
and D fails because it is more rational to back a point that has the possibility of success than one that does not have such a possibility.
This is not intended to prove or disprove God, but to merely examine the nature of the beliefs and the standard of proof that is required. Simply said, B, C, and D have painted themselves into a corner, in that they have lost the possibility to prove their cause, while A retains this possibility.
Lastly, given that the possibility of success is a unilateral. favoring Side A, time becomes allied with that that side. That is, the need to produce sooner than later is absent, as they are not subject to having one of the other sides produce before them.
Following this logic, One could argue that unicorns exist because you can’t prove they do not exist. If such a claim were made, in the honest belief that they existed, then the proponent must be prepared to specify the nature of the unicorn, and how one could be recognized if was encountered, where one might be found, and other facts sufficient to define and identify a unicorn. Thereafter, you may look for methods to prove or disprove the unicorn.
It seems to me that the better, or more rational ‘bet’ would be to back the side that has a chance of being successful, as opposed to backing a side that has no chance of successfully.
This is intended to merely look at the positions of the sides, not as supportive of any position. I do have my opinion, but, opinions are hard to prove.
Thanks for listening.
But if the possibility exists, who is to say that YOUR particular god is the one that exists and not the god Allah or whoever isn’t “your” god?
Incidently, I don’t think the agnostic approach was described accurately, Beryl. Unknowable doesn’t mean it could become knowable. It means it is unknowable. Ever.
In my opinion, it is as arrogant to claim you know god DOESN’T exist as it is to claim you DO. Also, Polycarp, I don’t see a difference between the statements “believing in” or “believing THAT”. Either one indicates you believe.
I tend to refer to myself as a skeptical agnostic. It isn’t knowable, but all evidence points to logic and science being the answer to the “Big Questions.”
Technically, I guess I’m sort of a skeptical agnostic, as well (but I’m also skeptical of the agnostic bit). I’m not even certain that agnosticism is right, but I’ve never seen any evidence that God exists, and I don’t expect that I ever will. I don’t have “faith” that God is unknowable… but it would take a heck of a lot more than feeling a presence of power to convince me that what I felt must be God (not my own mind).
Two distinct meanings, and the difference is important:
To believe in someone means that you put your trust in that person. Note that it’s directed towards a person. I love and trust my wife; I have confidence that what she does will be something I can ratify.
English also uses “believe” to mean a state of credence about something – that, for exmample, you have formed the opinion that wild thylacines or ivorybill woodpeckers do or do not exist as a non-extinct species. There is no proof either way, but questionable reports of observing them.
“I believe that God exists” means you give credence to the concept that there is one. “I believe in God” means that you put your faith and trust in His goodness – a quite different idea.
How can you put your faith and trust in God without believing that He exists?
What TVAA said. Unfortunately, I’ve gotta split. I’ll join you again tomorrow.
Rationality is a great instrument to deal with experience, yet we already know that some of its methods - like causality - are not as useful as we are used to when describing microcosmical events (or a multispatial universe or everything that’s very, very fast).
And mathematicians like Goedel already told us that we cannot describe a system totally and without contradiction - so we do know that it has its limits in dealing with complex systems as well.
With that in mind it shouldn’t suprise us, that rationality is not a proper instrument to describe a construct that is totally defined by irrational characteristics (omnipotent, all-knowing, eternal etc.).
And if we can’t describe it, we cannot develop rules to predict what should happen if there exists such an entity.
In principle, yet… - christians claim to know specifics about their god that exceed totally irrational characteristics: they say he is loving, caring, forgiving, merciful, sometimes furious and so on - all features we tend to attach to us, too.
If, of course, those words actually describe anything similar to the phenomena we experience - but if not they were totally arbitrary and then christians wouldn’t know a bit more about god than that he/she/it is totally indescribable.
Well, if they mean what we think they mean, we actually do have a rational basis to say something about the probability of god’s existence as described by christians, moslems etc.
Because we should observe events happening in a way that would be characteristic for the actions of a loving, caring and so on god.
And that’s the point where christians totally loose me.
The world as we know it is simply not a place that is governed by any being that could be described as loving and caring.
I do lead a very comfortable life and it wouldn’t surprise me when many dopers could say the same… - but we are a minority.
I had visited a cousin in hospital and his mother told me that the love of God had healed her son (and her faith, of course).
Nothing unusual, yet - I was just back from a trip to Africa and there I had seen mothers, too, and their children, some dying, some dead, some choped up. I doubt that they were not worth the love of a caring being or that they all lacked the faith to gain the right to live.
Yes, I know - the greater plan or something - yet, when we care for someone we don’t care about any of our plans when there is a need for help - we help and change our plans. If we don’t do that “caring” is simply the wrong word to describe us properly. A very wrong word.
[stunned silence]
Wow. That was both insightful and concise.
Welcome to the boards, ThoM.
Allow me to echo TVAA for once. That was probably the best brief statement of the Problem of Evil (AKA the Problem of Pain) I’ve ever seen. I don’t care what side you take in debates, ThoM – but stick around! 
TVAA, I agree that confidence in something you don’t hold to exist is absurd (though on this board it would not surprise me to see someone argue the position intelligently!) Rather, I was looking at the other dichotomy: it’s quite possible to hold the position that God does exist without therefore putting your trust in him.
What do you mean, “for once”? You should be radiating my reflected glory at all times.
Respectfully, that’s not quite the position I see you advocating, although your point is well taken. You seem to have done the latter, and that in turn implies the former.
That doesnt prove God doesnt exist... but it does prove the need of people to beleive in something greater AND benevolent. If God is something so much greater how could we dare attach simple human based adjectives to something like HIM ? Goes to show how silly humans can be.
God for all we know might just be a cruel sadistic supernatural being having fun with our misery. Would you be grateful to a extremely abusive parent for you existence ? God seems to be playing us along... be it for good or bad.Kalhoun
Yes, in this case the ability to prove Allah exists, as a possibility, for those who believe. This has nothing to do with which, if any God is real, but only with the fact that the proponent is the only one who has a potential to successfully prove his case.
Thanks for correcting my statement. I was rushing to make a meeting and in too much of a hurry as I was cutting and pasting the post. I have learned my lesson.
BTW, from your post I would guess that you are in a scientific of possible financial field. Am I close?
jharmon
It sounds like you have an open mind and a willing ness to look, but not willing to accept another’s dogma.
I understand that position completely. I would be willing to bet that if the existence of God, or the non-existence of God can be established, it won’t be lost on anyone here. (stay tuned!)
TVAA
The catch 22 right. No faith without belief, and no belief without faith. Resolving those issues
becomes difficult at best, especially when the logic is as sound as it is here. However, look at it this way, one of those qualities, faith or belief, must proceed the other before they can coexist.
TomM
Is it man who has provided these confusing label, and characteristics about God? And if so, can we allow for that in evaluating this by rejecting the strict fundamental approach? I think man has done more to set back religion than he has done to ruin our planet.
When I was young I used to look at clouds floating by and try to see shapes and whatnot in their form. I think I knew clouds pretty well then, at least well enough to recognize them from then on.
I went through flight training and had the chance to see clouds from a different view, never before did I realize that they were flat on the bottom. Working on my instrument rating I got another chance to view clouds from another position not previously available. I saw clouds differently than I had before. They were no longer white, puffy, or friendly. I learned that clouds look different from different when viewed from a different perspective.
Maybe is our view of what happens here that taints our feelings about the benevolence of God, I don’t have an answer for that. I agree with your point that when we care, we are all willing to change whatever we must to be there for the ones we care for.
Thanks all.