Re: Evidence for the Existence of God



 Religions > Atheism > Re: Evidence for the Existence of God

LINK TO THIS PAGE  


rating :  0   |  0


  Page 1 of 2

1

 

2

 
Topic: Religions > Atheism
User: "John Manning"
Date: 25 Nov 2007 02:11:05 PM
Object: Re: Evidence for the Existence of God
Woody Brison wrote:

In the thread "Agnosticism", Tokay Pino Gris <tokay.gris.b...@gmx.net>
wrote:

Woody Brison wrote:


I can think of four or five ways that the existence of
God can be demonstrated, and in fact I think I've posted
them in the not too distant past.

Must have missed them. Care to post them again? We have been constantly
asking for evidence of this "god" or any god, in fact, but so far, we
had no luck.


OK. Sorry to not respond sooner but I don't know where I
posted that. Can't seem to find it now. No matter, I can
rewrite it probably better than I did before, like
Jeremiah.

The evidence I'm about to post requires a little bit of
explanation.

If God were standing next to you, you could verify his
existence. But since he's a long, long way away, it gets
more difficult. The evidence gets more tenuous and we might
have to think about it to get it.

Do you believe in the existence of the Tower of Pisa? Most
of us have never seen it yet we can verify its existence by
various means. Does air exist? Can't see it, but if you
swing your arms around you can feel the air as it rushes
past your fingers. We cannot see the air in the simple case
like we can see a plate full of turkey and gravy but we can
realize that air exists by other means, perfectly valid.

The reason the evidence for God has to be realized is not
because God doesn't exist, but because the earth is far
from God. We are here for this exact reason, to experience
life far from him.

If you define God as a purple dinosaur that controls
everything, you could examine the whole universe and not
find this; yet God could still exist, just not fit your
definition. So what would be the procedure, go thru every
possible definition of God and look for each in turn? I
know what God is like, so I can shorten the search. I'm
going to define God as that being who:

- created the earth
- is the father of the human race
- truly loves his children
- has the size and shape of a man
- lives forever
- exists in one place at a time
- is omnipotent, with certain limits
- is omniscient, with certain limits
- is omnipresent philosophically
- is invisible when he's hidden

One last thing about the evidence: we humans have an
amazing ability to see what we want and NOT SEE what we
don't want. Since God is a long way away from this earth -
perhaps he's in some other part of the Galaxy or maybe some
other dimension or something - and since this has been the
case for a long time, we humans are developing a racial
memory loss about him. Some of us are building resentments
against him, and we are forming theories that he doesn't
exist, and (due to the natural pride that any theory-maker
has) we are rejecting arguments and evidence that he does.
I posit that there is enough credible evidence for anyone
to suppose that He might exist - if we are not biased
against seeing it.

With this in mind, I can think of a number of evidences for
the existence of God. In some cases, it's like the explorer
who treks thru the jungle and finds the lost city of Cibola
or something. The natives wouldn't let him bring back any
artifacts but he himself knows he saw it. If we send a
number of people some report that they saw it and some say
they couldn't find it. The law of multiple witnesses can
help to analyze the situation. Proof in the artifact sense
is not presently available but anyone can verify it by
going there themself.

The evidence:

1. Mankind has a persistent tradition of a Supreme Being.
In the very oldest legends, men are children of God and
there are often stories of an idyllic happy state from
which the first two humans fell. Further, God was to have
temples built where he could be worshipped, with actors
illustrating the above stories, with mankind being issued
special clothing and being brought back into the presence
of the Supreme Being, often via a substitute execution.
There are also legends of a worldwide flood with only a few
saved in a boat.

If these legends are all poppycock, how did they get spread
all over the world, or why do they have these similar
elements?

2. Mankind has a collective opinion about the existence of
God based partly on observation, partly on reasoning, and
partly on assumption. In a university setting in America
or Europe, you will get the impression that atheists
comprise 95% of the population. Out in the world however -
the vast majority - it's closer to 10%. We can question
people as to why they think God exists, and they may relate
visions, visits by angels, miracles, etc. It would be
analogous to surveying a vast territory to look for
meteorites rather than just your own yard.

Consider time travel. The argument is made that time travel
must not be possible because if it were, we would
occasionally or often meet time travelers. Well, there are
a certain fraction of us that have met angels, seen God,
known he exists, and so forth.

3. If someone is trying to find out whether God exists, it
makes sense to study what others have written who engaged
in the same quest previously.

Where God has been operating to bring about certain goals
on the earth, the people in that time and place should have
greater insights. I will list the Israelites in the time
of Moses and after; in the time of Jesus and his Apostles;
in ancient America among the Nephites; and in the
Restoration with Joseph Smith and the Mormons. I posit that
in these four milieux, people had more direct experiences
with God than usual and their writings (the Old Testament,
the New Testatment, the Book of Mormon and the LDS Doctrine
and Covenants) are therefore especially valuable.

4. In the Bible, and in Latter-day Saint teachings, there
are prophecies which have come true, defying odds.

5. If God is our creator, then it makes sense that if we
seek him, as we approach him we will feel something. This
can be experienced by anyone. Some will say it's just an
emotional reaction, but I've studied it and it's not.

6. Anyone can open a correspondence, a communciation, with
God. If he's omniscient then he can hear you talk and he
can answer. He might choose to answer in a quiet voice,
which would seem at first like just you having thoughts.
But by following these thoughts diligently, you can
identify the direction they are coming from and move closer
- this might not be a physical direction, but a thematic
one - and get to hear His voice more clearly.

By developing this communication one can eventually come
to know that God exists. It shouldn't be hard for an
omnipotent being to provide proof once someone is seeking
Him.

Verily, thus saith the Lord: It shall come to pass that
every soul who forsaketh his sins and cometh unto me, and
calleth on my name, and obeyeth my voice, and keepeth my
commandments, shall see my face and know that I am...
(Doctrine and Covenants, Section 93:1)

Some will object that we can delude ourselves into
anything. I suggest that this exercise can be done
carefully, with a lab book to record one's experiences. By
going carefully, thinking it thru, not forgetting stuff, a
person can distinguish between real events and delusion.

Furthermore, the exercise can be discussed with people
having a range of bias. I think that one will encounter
the phenomenon I described above - that some people will
be unwilling to seriously consider any of this.

Check your circuits often. Are you ingesting hallucinogens?
Are you healthy? Can you solve logical problems like a
sudoku or a crossword or a solitaire game? Are you able to
have good relationships with people, as evidenced by actual
experience? Do you have a working relationship with the
world, ie. can you pay for your meals, housing, etc. or are
you a fringe personality? What does that mean if so? These
questions are related to people's ability to see what they
might not want to see.

There are many puzzles in life but if you are fairly
confident that you are seeing what is there, the thing to
do is proceed on the basis of what seems to be indicated.

7. Isaiah prophecied that in the last days, God would show
his arm. Isaiah 52:9-10; amplified by Nephi (1 Nephi 22:10-
12) who was looking at an early copy of Isaiah, probably a
little different from our present copy. In the coming
forth of the Book of Mormon we have direct, irrefutable
evidence that God exists - it's like he allowed his arm to
be seen, and Nephi says this is the fulfillment of Isaiah's
prophecy. The Lord brought forth the Book of Mormon in a
very competent way. He arranged for witnesses. They saw an
angel and heard His voice as the plates were exhibited.
The Holy Ghost testified to them it was true. They knew.
These three witnesses bore their testimony in writing and
stuck to this story all their lives, in spite of
persecution, strong motivation otherwise - even when they
were expelled from the Church they still refused to retract
their testimony. No one yet has been able to find a
plausible explanation, other than the one they gave, why
three men would do and say this. In addition, there were
eight other men who saw the plates and verified that they
existed. They too refused to change their story all their
lives. In addition to Joseph Smith and one other lady who
saw the plates - that makes 13 witnesses - there were
others such as Joseph's family who felt the plates thru a
cloth and reported that it was a stack of metal sheets,
which could be riffled like a book; that it was heavy, etc.
No one who was in a position to know reported any other
scenario. This is a proof that the Book of Mormon is true.
It would stand up in any court in the world.

There is much real evidence that the Book of Mormon is
true, and in addition to the miraculous nature of its
coming forth, the text of it tells us that God exists.

8. In the Book of Mormon there is a promise that God will
tell you the book is true, with explanations as to how to
get this to happen; along the lines of points 5 and 6. If
you get a sure knowledge from God about the book, you will
know that God exists.

Millions of people have realized the above promise and can
testify (and do) that the Book of Mormon is true, that God
exists, and that the Church of Jesus Christ has been
restored to the earth. You are welcome to come to meetings
of the Church any Sunday, and on usually the first Sunday
of the month we have what we call testimony meeting where
anyone can go to the microphone and speak their mind. It's
a very convenient and easy way for you to hear some of
these people testify that they have realized this promise.

9. Jesus gave a very significant key:

Matthew 7:15-20 Beware of false prophets, which come to
you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening
wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men
gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so
every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt
tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring
forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth
good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit
is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their
fruits ye shall know them.

I theorize that Jesus understood that the doctrines of
Christianity would get muddled after 2000 years, so he gave
this key as a way to identify true prophets from false in a
way that does not depend on their doctrine. (How can we be
sure some prophet is teaching us the right or wrong
doctrine if we don't know for sure what the right doctrine
is?) But in the results there is certainty - results never
lie.

Some will say the Bible tells us there will never be any
more prophets. You have to stretch some passages to get
that, and why would Jesus give this key if so? He'd have
simply said, "There will be no more prophets, any who claim
to be are false."

The Latter-day Saints have been following their prophets
for about 180 years. Results: they are a vigorous people,
one of the faster-growing churches, and the LDS have
generally better health and less depression, more college
graduates, they have more fun without chemical stimulants,
they have turned deserts into gardens, and in many other
ways exhibit the results of following a good prophet. The
Latter-day Saints are a living testimony that God exists.

10. One of the significant doctrines of the LDS is that
men should pay tithing, and that if they do they will be
blessed economically and in other ways. Tithing means one
tenth of your income. It's explained in the book of Malachi:

Malachi 3:10-12 Bring ye all the tithes into the
storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and
prove me now herewith, saith the LORD of hosts, if I will
not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a
blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive
it. And I will rebuke the devourer for your sakes, and he
shall not destroy the fruits of your ground; neither
shall your vine cast her fruit before the time in the
field, saith the LORD of hosts. And all nations shall
call you blessed: for ye shall be a delightsome land,
saith the LORD of hosts.

You can test this promise yourself. Anyone can pay
tithing, you don't have to be a member of the Church of
Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or pay your tithing to
one of our bishops. You can take one tenth of your income
and donate it to some charity - choose a really good one,
like say a children's hospital or something. Do this for a
year or two and see what happens. Record the results in a
notebook and study them. If the results show unequivocably
that you have been blessed in a supernatural way, then you
have verified this proof of the existence of God. If you
don't want to commit 10% of your income, do 5% or 1%, and
look for lesser, but still nonzero effects.


I will be minding this thread. I will try to respond to
objections, and I admit I may not know answers to all of
them. I do know that God exists, and since the question
came up, I offer my services to help resolve the question
for anyone that wants to resolve it.

Wood

"It does not require many words to speak the truth."
~~ Chief Joseph, native American leader (1840-1904)
.

User: "skddlbyp"

Title: Re: Evidence for the Existence of God 26 Nov 2007 08:19:33 AM

5. If God is our creator, then it makes sense that if we
seek him, as we approach him we will feel something. This
can be experienced by anyone. Some will say it's just an
emotional reaction, but I've studied it and it's not.

6. Anyone can open a correspondence, a communciation, with
God. If he's omniscient then he can hear you talk and he
can answer. He might choose to answer in a quiet voice,
which would seem at first like just you having thoughts.
But by following these thoughts diligently, you can
identify the direction they are coming from and move closer
- this might not be a physical direction, but a thematic
one - and get to hear His voice more clearly.

By developing this communication one can eventually come
to know that God exists. It shouldn't be hard for an
omnipotent being to provide proof once someone is seeking
Him.
Some will object that we can delude ourselves into
anything. I suggest that this exercise can be done
carefully, with a lab book to record one's experiences. By
going carefully, thinking it thru, not forgetting stuff, a
person can distinguish between real events and delusion.

A lab book? Sounds scientific.
Some interesting ideas, though. There may another alternative to
distinguish between real events and delusion.
As for chit-chatting with God whenever one feels like it, forget it. Not
even Elijah could do this. I'm sure Joseph Smith could make God jump over
hoops, though, being such an outrageously holy guy, and all that.
What's the alternative? Has nothing to do with scientific proof. Suppose
one did something in the past, or had a certain attitude. Then one's life
takes a certain course, probably based on decisions one made. Then, perhaps
years later, one hears what one might call a still, small voice - one just
barely hears it, it's just barely intelligible. And what it says is that the
course one's life has taken is a direct result, consequence, punishment,
lesson or learning experience, based on or derived from what happened
earlier. This is the first time one realizes it, and one can apprehend that
what has happened to oneself is real and not imaginary. It's not the same
thing as an inner subconscious insight becoming conscious, because these
events that have occurred in one's life are in a sense determined even
though one has free choice.
So, if we are speaking of knowledge of the existence of G-d, it's more
like a dream than scientific knowledge, more from within than without.
Perhaps theere are rare occasions when an external proof of G-d's
existence might be convincing, as at the Red Sea maybe, but this sort of
proof is probably inferior, second grade. As for the Plagues in Egypt, there
are always questions about the relation of the natural and the supernatural,
questions which the scientist is quick to raise.
.
User: "Michael"

Title: Re: Evidence for the Existence of God 26 Nov 2007 11:19:40 AM
On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 08:19:33 -0600, skddlbyp wrote:

As for the Plagues in Egypt, there
are always questions about the relation of the natural and the supernatural,
questions which the scientist is quick to raise.

I hope instead that scientists ANSWER questions. It is very easy to raise
them and I certainly wouldn't pay anyone to sit there and raise questions.
That is what y'all are doing ;-)
.
User: "Tokay Pino Gris"

Title: Re: Evidence for the Existence of God 26 Nov 2007 02:00:53 PM
Michael wrote:

On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 08:19:33 -0600, skddlbyp wrote:

As for the Plagues in Egypt, there
are always questions about the relation of the natural and the supernatural,
questions which the scientist is quick to raise.


I hope instead that scientists ANSWER questions. It is very easy to raise
them and I certainly wouldn't pay anyone to sit there and raise questions.
That is what y'all are doing ;-)

hehe... Scientists LOVE questions. They thrive on them. What good is an
answer after you have found it? Write a paper (which already is the
dreaded part), send it in, that's it.
So, where is the next question to tackle? The the next mystery to unravel?
So, in a way, scientists are PAYED to ask questions. Also, because
sometimes, finding the right question shows you the path to finding the
answer to it.
--
I don't think this place is turning out to be that great an experience
for me. I mean I work under terrible pressure and everything and there's
a lot of death and destruction and stuff but outside of that I don't
think I'm really getting much out of it.
Radar O'Reilly
.



User: "Tokay Pino Gris"

Title: Re: Evidence for the Existence of God 25 Nov 2007 11:17:08 PM
John Manning wrote:

Woody Brison wrote:

In the thread "Agnosticism", Tokay Pino Gris <tokay.gris.b...@gmx.net>
wrote:

Woody Brison wrote:


I can think of four or five ways that the existence of
God can be demonstrated, and in fact I think I've posted
them in the not too distant past.

Must have missed them. Care to post them again? We have been constantly
asking for evidence of this "god" or any god, in fact, but so far, we
had no luck.


OK. Sorry to not respond sooner but I don't know where I
posted that. Can't seem to find it now. No matter, I can
rewrite it probably better than I did before, like
Jeremiah.

Somehow the previous post got lost...
So I'll answer here.


The evidence I'm about to post requires a little bit of
explanation.

If God were standing next to you, you could verify his
existence. But since he's a long, long way away, it gets
more difficult. The evidence gets more tenuous and we might
have to think about it to get it.

Do you believe in the existence of the Tower of Pisa?

No. I have seen it. Quite funny, actually.
Most

of us have never seen it yet we can verify its existence by
various means.

What would those means be? To actually verify its existence?
Does air exist? Can't see it, but if you

swing your arms around you can feel the air as it rushes
past your fingers. We cannot see the air

"See" is not required to establish existence.
in the simple case

like we can see a plate full of turkey and gravy but we can
realize that air exists by other means, perfectly valid.

Yes.


The reason the evidence for God has to be realized is not
because God doesn't exist, but because the earth is far
from God. We are here for this exact reason, to experience
life far from him.

Doesn't say anything about existence yet.


If you define God as a purple dinosaur that controls
everything, you could examine the whole universe and not
find this;

Yes. That is why "god" is NOT the hypothesis but the antithesis. No
matter what shape or color.
yet God could still exist, just not fit your

definition. So what would be the procedure, go thru every
possible definition of God and look for each in turn?

No. That is simple logic. Something that CAN'T be falsified isn't a
valid hypothesis.
I

know what God is like, so I can shorten the search. I'm
going to define God as that being who:

- created the earth
- is the father of the human race
- truly loves his children
- has the size and shape of a man
- lives forever
- exists in one place at a time
- is omnipotent, with certain limits
- is omniscient, with certain limits
- is omnipresent philosophically
- is invisible when he's hidden

Ehm. You do notice that some of these contradict themselves?


One last thing about the evidence: we humans have an
amazing ability to see what we want and NOT SEE what we
don't want. Since God is a long way away from this earth -
perhaps he's in some other part of the Galaxy or maybe some
other dimension or something - and since this has been the
case for a long time, we humans are developing a racial
memory loss about him. Some of us are building resentments
against him, and we are forming theories that he doesn't
exist,

Not theories. LACK of evidence that he does.
and (due to the natural pride that any theory-maker

has) we are rejecting arguments and evidence that he does.
I posit that there is enough credible evidence for anyone
to suppose that He might exist - if we are not biased
against seeing it.

"Might" is not the question.


With this in mind, I can think of a number of evidences for
the existence of God. In some cases, it's like the explorer
who treks thru the jungle and finds the lost city of Cibola
or something. The natives wouldn't let him bring back any
artifacts but he himself knows he saw it. If we send a
number of people some report that they saw it and some say
they couldn't find it. The law of multiple witnesses can
help to analyze the situation. Proof in the artifact sense
is not presently available but anyone can verify it by
going there themself.

The evidence:

1. Mankind has a persistent tradition of a Supreme Being.

Hardly evidence, is it?

In the very oldest legends, men are children of God and
there are often stories of an idyllic happy state from
which the first two humans fell.

Ehm. No. That is especially christian. LOTS of other myths.
Further, God was to have

temples built where he could be worshipped, with actors
illustrating the above stories, with mankind being issued
special clothing and being brought back into the presence
of the Supreme Being, often via a substitute execution.

Ehm. The WORSHIP is evidence? Hardly.

There are also legends of a worldwide flood with only a few
saved in a boat.

Christian legend again. And NO basis in facts.


If these legends are all poppycock, how did they get spread
all over the world, or why do they have these similar
elements?

They don't, actually.


2. Mankind has a collective opinion about the existence of
God based partly on observation,

What observation?
partly on reasoning, and

partly on assumption.

Those two are obviously NOT evidence of any kind.
In a university setting in America

or Europe, you will get the impression that atheists
comprise 95% of the population.

Rather less, I guess. But never mind the number.
Out in the world however -

the vast majority - it's closer to 10%.

Very much depending on country.
We can question

people as to why they think God exists, and they may relate
visions, visits by angels, miracles, etc.

Very few of those.
It would be

analogous to surveying a vast territory to look for
meteorites rather than just your own yard.

Consider time travel. The argument is made that time travel
must not be possible because if it were, we would
occasionally or often meet time travelers.

That is basic science fiction. Sure. But "fiction".
Well, there are

a certain fraction of us that have met angels, seen God,
known he exists, and so forth.

Ehm. I guess this "fraction" is Waaaaaay behind the comma... as in
0,000000000something


3. If someone is trying to find out whether God exists, it
makes sense to study what others have written who engaged
in the same quest previously.

Yes. But even that is not evidence.


Where God has been operating to bring about certain goals
on the earth, the people in that time and place should have
greater insights. I will list the Israelites in the time
of Moses and after; in the time of Jesus and his Apostles;
in ancient America among the Nephites; and in the
Restoration with Joseph Smith and the Mormons.

Ehm. THAT is anecdotal. At best. Stories. Fiction. The existence of this
"son of god" whether he was or not could so far not even be established.
I posit that

in these four milieux, people had more direct experiences
with God than usual and their writings (the Old Testament,
the New Testatment, the Book of Mormon and the LDS Doctrine
and Covenants) are therefore especially valuable.

How is a book evidence? It CAN pose the evidence, evidence that can be
checked through other means. It HAS been tried to do that in the case of
the bible.... with rather minimal results.


4. In the Bible, and in Latter-day Saint teachings, there
are prophecies which have come true, defying odds.

Name a few?


5. If God is our creator, then it makes sense that if we
seek him, as we approach him we will feel something. This
can be experienced by anyone. Some will say it's just an
emotional reaction, but I've studied it and it's not.

Ehm. "Approach" him? How do you do that? We can't even FIND him.


6. Anyone can open a correspondence, a communciation, with
God.

Correspondence? That would mean answers.
If he's omniscient then he can hear you talk and he

can answer. He might choose to answer in a quiet voice,
which would seem at first like just you having thoughts.

Not only at first, I'd say.

But by following these thoughts diligently, you can
identify the direction they are coming from and move closer
- this might not be a physical direction, but a thematic
one - and get to hear His voice more clearly.

Rather.... well... esoteric.


By developing this communication one can eventually come
to know that God exists. It shouldn't be hard for an
omnipotent being to provide proof once someone is seeking
Him.

Since the judeo-christian god seems to be so keen on people believing in
him, he could make himself visible once in a while.


Verily, thus saith the Lord: It shall come to pass that
every soul who forsaketh his sins and cometh unto me, and
calleth on my name, and obeyeth my voice, and keepeth my
commandments, shall see my face and know that I am...
(Doctrine and Covenants, Section 93:1)

Anecdotal.


Some will object that we can delude ourselves into
anything. I suggest that this exercise can be done
carefully, with a lab book to record one's experiences. By
going carefully, thinking it thru, not forgetting stuff, a
person can distinguish between real events and delusion.

I rather doubt that.


Furthermore, the exercise can be discussed with people
having a range of bias. I think that one will encounter
the phenomenon I described above - that some people will
be unwilling to seriously consider any of this.

I will consider evidence.


Check your circuits often. Are you ingesting hallucinogens?
Are you healthy? Can you solve logical problems like a
sudoku or a crossword or a solitaire game? Are you able to
have good relationships with people, as evidenced by actual
experience? Do you have a working relationship with the
world, ie. can you pay for your meals, housing, etc. or are
you a fringe personality? What does that mean if so? These
questions are related to people's ability to see what they
might not want to see.

Huh?


There are many puzzles in life but if you are fairly
confident that you are seeing what is there, the thing to
do is proceed on the basis of what seems to be indicated.

I do.


7. Isaiah prophecied that in the last days, God would show
his arm. Isaiah 52:9-10; amplified by Nephi (1 Nephi 22:10-
12) who was looking at an early copy of Isaiah, probably a
little different from our present copy. In the coming
forth of the Book of Mormon we have direct, irrefutable
evidence that God exists

No. Sorry to be so blunt. But no.
- it's like he allowed his arm to

be seen, and Nephi says this is the fulfillment of Isaiah's
prophecy. The Lord brought forth the Book of Mormon in a
very competent way.

Ehm. I read up on it a bit. And while I think that the bible is a work
of fiction, this book of mormon is BAD fiction....
I mean, come on...
Christians in America before Columbus (Or Amerigo Vespucci)? With NO
traces left? Be serious. This belongs in the same club as scientology.
He arranged for witnesses. They saw an

angel and heard His voice as the plates were exhibited.
The Holy Ghost testified to them it was true.

The Puss in Boots (is that the correct name of that fairy tale?)
witnessed the existence of Darth Vader... Ehm.
They knew.

These three witnesses bore their testimony in writing and
stuck to this story all their lives, in spite of
persecution, strong motivation otherwise - even when they
were expelled from the Church they still refused to retract
their testimony. No one yet has been able to find a
plausible explanation, other than the one they gave,

I have one. Guess?
why

three men would do and say this. In addition, there were
eight other men who saw the plates and verified that they
existed. They too refused to change their story all their
lives.

Same explanation.
In addition to Joseph Smith and one other lady who

saw the plates - that makes 13 witnesses - there were
others such as Joseph's family who felt the plates thru a
cloth and reported that it was a stack of metal sheets,
which could be riffled like a book; that it was heavy, etc.
No one who was in a position to know reported any other
scenario. This is a proof that the Book of Mormon is true.

No. It is proof that these people told that story (and even to that I
haven't seen data).

It would stand up in any court in the world.

Ehm. No. It would FAIL in EVERY court.


There is much real evidence that the Book of Mormon is
true, and in addition to the miraculous nature of its
coming forth, the text of it tells us that God exists.

Circular logic. Therefor: Invalid.


8. In the Book of Mormon there is a promise that God will
tell you the book is true, with explanations as to how to
get this to happen; along the lines of points 5 and 6. If
you get a sure knowledge from God about the book, you will
know that God exists.

Circular again.


Millions of people have realized the above promise and can
testify (and do) that the Book of Mormon is true, that God
exists, and that the Church of Jesus Christ has been
restored to the earth.

Evidence is still missing...
You are welcome to come to meetings

of the Church any Sunday,

Been there (nor mormon one) and fell asleep. Sorry to say.
and on usually the first Sunday

of the month we have what we call testimony meeting where
anyone can go to the microphone and speak their mind. It's
a very convenient and easy way for you to hear some of
these people testify that they have realized this promise.

9. Jesus gave a very significant key:

Matthew 7:15-20 Beware of false prophets, which come to
you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening
wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men
gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so
every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt
tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring
forth evil fruit,

Ehm. You should open a biology book one of these days. Apart from that
question what "a good tree" might be....
neither can a corrupt tree bring forth

good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit
is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their
fruits ye shall know them.

Anecdotal, ad nauseam.


I theorize that Jesus understood that the doctrines of
Christianity would get muddled after 2000 years, so he gave
this key as a way to identify true prophets from false in a
way that does not depend on their doctrine. (How can we be
sure some prophet is teaching us the right or wrong
doctrine if we don't know for sure what the right doctrine
is?) But in the results there is certainty - results never
lie.

Results based on evidence - funny as that sounds - CAN be wrong.
Results NOT based on evidence... MIGHT be correct. But can't be adopted
as correct UNTIL proven. Which has not happend.


Some will say the Bible tells us there will never be any
more prophets. You have to stretch some passages to get
that, and why would Jesus give this key if so? He'd have
simply said, "There will be no more prophets, any who claim
to be are false."

The Latter-day Saints have been following their prophets
for about 180 years. Results: they are a vigorous people,
one of the faster-growing churches, and the LDS have
generally better health and less depression, more college
graduates, they have more fun without chemical stimulants,
they have turned deserts into gardens, and in many other
ways exhibit the results of following a good prophet. The
Latter-day Saints are a living testimony that God exists.

Circular, in extremis.


10. One of the significant doctrines of the LDS is that
men should pay tithing, and that if they do they will be
blessed economically and in other ways.

Ehm. Nice. And obvious. The Church needs money.
Tithing means one

tenth of your income. It's explained in the book of Malachi:

Malachi 3:10-12 Bring ye all the tithes into the
storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and
prove me now herewith, saith the LORD of hosts, if I will
not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a
blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive
it. And I will rebuke the devourer for your sakes, and he
shall not destroy the fruits of your ground; neither
shall your vine cast her fruit before the time in the
field, saith the LORD of hosts. And all nations shall
call you blessed: for ye shall be a delightsome land,
saith the LORD of hosts.

You can test this promise yourself. Anyone can pay
tithing, you don't have to be a member of the Church of
Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or pay your tithing to
one of our bishops.

Oooooh. Nice sales pitch.
You can take one tenth of your income

and donate it to some charity - choose a really good one,
like say a children's hospital or something. Do this for a
year or two and see what happens. Record the results in a
notebook and study them. If the results show unequivocably
that you have been blessed in a supernatural way, then you
have verified this proof of the existence of God. If you
don't want to commit 10% of your income, do 5% or 1%, and
look for lesser, but still nonzero effects.

THAT is specific claim. Careful with that. Specific claims tend to turn
around and bite you.



I will be minding this thread. I will try to respond to
objections, and I admit I may not know answers to all of
them. I do know that God exists, and since the question
came up, I offer my services to help resolve the question
for anyone that wants to resolve it.

So far, all you said does not amount to evidence. I tried to explain and
show WHY not.
Tokay
--
"I either want less corruption, or more chance to participate in it."
Ashleigh Brilliant
.
User: "Michael"

Title: Re: Evidence for the Existence of God 26 Nov 2007 12:14:53 PM
On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 06:17:08 +0100, Tokay Pino Gris wrote:

John Manning wrote:

Woody Brison wrote:

In the thread "Agnosticism", Tokay Pino Gris <tokay.gris.b...@gmx.net>
wrote:

Woody Brison wrote:


Do you believe in the existence of the Tower of Pisa?


No. I have seen it. Quite funny, actually.

Most

of us have never seen it yet we can verify its existence by
various means.


What would those means be? To actually verify its existence?

Tokay, you do hit the real question this time. What is real? Self
existence is established with "I think, therefore I am" (as rendered in
English).
If self exists, then anything self can sense also exists, BUT with the
caution or caveat that WHAT exists is the SENSE of something else.
Everything that we sense exists, everything we do not sense, may not exist
(or it might).
"Exist" therefore does not speak to objective reality, rather, it speaks
to our sense of a thing existing.
Some people here want to establish a meaning of "exist" that exceeds our
ability to actually verify.
.
User: "Tokay Pino Gris"

Title: Re: Evidence for the Existence of God 26 Nov 2007 01:56:53 PM
Michael wrote:

On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 06:17:08 +0100, Tokay Pino Gris wrote:

John Manning wrote:

Woody Brison wrote:

In the thread "Agnosticism", Tokay Pino Gris <tokay.gris.b...@gmx.net>
wrote:

Woody Brison wrote:

Do you believe in the existence of the Tower of Pisa?

No. I have seen it. Quite funny, actually.

Most

of us have never seen it yet we can verify its existence by
various means.

What would those means be? To actually verify its existence?


Tokay, you do hit the real question this time. What is real? Self
existence is established with "I think, therefore I am" (as rendered in
English).

That is quite an interesting topic in science. What is "I"? Does it even
exist? You might not like him, but that is Sam Harris' actual scientific
field of work.


If self exists, then anything self can sense also exists, BUT with the
caution or caveat that WHAT exists is the SENSE of something else.
Everything that we sense exists, everything we do not sense, may not exist
(or it might).

"Exist" therefore does not speak to objective reality, rather, it speaks
to our sense of a thing existing.

Weeeell. In a way that is correct. But also wrong. If a thing exists, it
can be verified. I tell you, the tower of Pisa exists. So far you have
only my word for it. But - and that is crucial - you can go to Pisa and
have a look for yourself. So, my claim is easily verified.
(I am told that you can actually go up the tower again... When I was
there that was forbidden).


Some people here want to establish a meaning of "exist" that exceeds our
ability to actually verify.

Yes. That is it. And that is the argument AGAINST a "god" in a way.
There is no way to verify. No evidence, reproducible data can be
obtained. Well, in theory, there CAN be but the fact is: There isn't any.
Tokay
--
I don't think this place is turning out to be that great an experience
for me. I mean I work under terrible pressure and everything and there's
a lot of death and destruction and stuff but outside of that I don't
think I'm really getting much out of it.
Radar O'Reilly
.
User: "Michael"

Title: Re: Evidence for the Existence of God 26 Nov 2007 03:48:35 PM
On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 20:56:53 +0100, Tokay Pino Gris wrote:

Michael wrote:

"Exist" therefore does not speak to objective reality, rather, it speaks
to our sense of a thing existing.


Weeeell. In a way that is correct. But also wrong. If a thing exists, it
can be verified. I tell you, the tower of Pisa exists. So far you have
only my word for it. But - and that is crucial - you can go to Pisa and
have a look for yourself. So, my claim is easily verified.
(I am told that you can actually go up the tower again... When I was
there that was forbidden).

Indeed, the possibility of verification exists, but for the billions of
people that do not make the trip, only belief exists.
Leaving aside "logic" for a moment, the combined weight of many people
reporting having visited lends much credence to the belief that it
"exists", a phenomenon that also pertains to religion.



Some people here want to establish a meaning of "exist" that exceeds our
ability to actually verify.


Yes. That is it. And that is the argument AGAINST a "god" in a way.
There is no way to verify. No evidence, reproducible data can be
obtained. Well, in theory, there CAN be but the fact is: There isn't any.

There is a way, but there's a price -- presumably one can return from
Pisa, this is not generally considered possible with a visit to God.
In the case of reproducible objects, the thing must be amenable to our
control. Mankind made the Tower of Pisa; can certainly make it again, and
even if you go there you cannot be utterly certain that you are looking
at, walking on, the one-true-LtoP. Maybe you made a left turn in Paris
and ended up at Euro Disney and they have a mock-up. Okay, extreme
example, but you can see that even in the realm of "real" you have some
circular logic. When you arrive at the LtoP, how do you know that is what
it is? Ultimately, you cannot, it is a matter of definition. The more
definitions it matches, the more authentic you consider it to be. Is it
the right size and shape? Does it "seem old"? Is it in the right place?
If all of these things seem true, then you are willing to consider that it
is the Leaning Tower of Pisa. If everything but "place" is correct, then
you have a mock-up, a copy. If place is correct but it doesn't look like
your expectations suggest it should, maybe you made a wrong turn nearby.
.
User: "Tokay Pino Gris"

Title: Re: Evidence for the Existence of God 26 Nov 2007 08:09:26 PM
Michael wrote:

On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 20:56:53 +0100, Tokay Pino Gris wrote:

Michael wrote:

"Exist" therefore does not speak to objective reality, rather, it speaks
to our sense of a thing existing.

Weeeell. In a way that is correct. But also wrong. If a thing exists, it
can be verified. I tell you, the tower of Pisa exists. So far you have
only my word for it. But - and that is crucial - you can go to Pisa and
have a look for yourself. So, my claim is easily verified.
(I am told that you can actually go up the tower again... When I was
there that was forbidden).


Indeed, the possibility of verification exists, but for the billions of
people that do not make the trip, only belief exists.

Yep. Exactly. But they could.
So, while my claim "the tower of pisa exists" is one DIFFERING from the
null, I can provide evidence. I can bring them to Pisa and let them have
a look at the strange thing.

Leaving aside "logic" for a moment, the combined weight of many people
reporting having visited lends much credence to the belief that it
"exists", a phenomenon that also pertains to religion.

Well... there is not ONE that claims the tower does not exist. The
evidence is mundane, simple, easy. Take a plane to Rome, take a bus, see
it. NOTHING that requires anything unrealistic or anything.
So, quite apart from the things religions - of whatever coleur - this
clain is easily checked.


Some people here want to establish a meaning of "exist" that exceeds our
ability to actually verify.

Yes. That is it. And that is the argument AGAINST a "god" in a way.
There is no way to verify. No evidence, reproducible data can be
obtained. Well, in theory, there CAN be but the fact is: There isn't any.


There is a way, but there's a price -- presumably one can return from
Pisa, this is not generally considered possible with a visit to God.

So, it is not reproducible data.


In the case of reproducible objects, the thing must be amenable to our
control. Mankind made the Tower of Pisa; can certainly make it again, and
even if you go there you cannot be utterly certain that you are looking
at, walking on, the one-true-LtoP.

But that claim is different from the theistic one. I mean, what's so
special about a crooked tower? It is there, it is bend. So what? Not
really extraordinary.
Maybe you made a left turn in Paris

and ended up at Euro Disney and they have a mock-up.

Probably. Quite a detour, btw.
Okay, extreme

example, but you can see that even in the realm of "real" you have some
circular logic.

Not really.
When you arrive at the LtoP, how do you know that is what

it is? Ultimately, you cannot, it is a matter of definition.

No. You are in Pisa. The tower that looks REALLY silly is it.
The more

definitions it matches, the more authentic you consider it to be.

Well, we don't have to "define" the tower.
Is it

the right size and shape? Does it "seem old"? Is it in the right place?
If all of these things seem true, then you are willing to consider that it
is the Leaning Tower of Pisa. If everything but "place" is correct, then
you have a mock-up, a copy. If place is correct but it doesn't look like
your expectations suggest it should, maybe you made a wrong turn nearby.

So, if you have a "god" that does all the things theists claim he
does... is he a "mock-up"?
It might not be THE tower of Pisa and it might not be THE god, but the
attributes are there.... So, it still would a crooked tower and it still
would be a god. But crooked towers CAN be build.
Tokay
--
I don't think this place is turning out to be that great an experience
for me. I mean I work under terrible pressure and everything and there's
a lot of death and destruction and stuff but outside of that I don't
think I'm really getting much out of it.
Radar O'Reilly
.
User: "Michael"

Title: Re: Evidence for the Existence of God 29 Nov 2007 04:41:26 PM
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 03:09:26 +0100, Tokay Pino Gris wrote:

Michael wrote:

Is it
the right size and shape? Does it "seem old"? Is it in the right place?
If all of these things seem true, then you are willing to consider that it
is the Leaning Tower of Pisa. If everything but "place" is correct, then
you have a mock-up, a copy. If place is correct but it doesn't look like
your expectations suggest it should, maybe you made a wrong turn nearby.


So, if you have a "god" that does all the things theists claim he
does... is he a "mock-up"?

It might not be THE tower of Pisa and it might not be THE god, but the
attributes are there.... So, it still would a crooked tower and it still
would be a god. But crooked towers CAN be build.

I see that you understand me, and you can understand why I am not trying
to define or prove the "one true god" because that is a thing that I
believe cannot be done.
Going to a place called Pisa is easy; just fine a place that calls itself
Pisa -- it is self-defining, a tautology. Once there, find a tower. By
definition, it must be the Tower of Pisa. Does it lean? If so, then it
is the Leaning Tower of Pisa.
But that is not what people want. They want to know that it is the
one-and-only, genuine original Leaning Tower of Pisa -- why? Because some
sort of glory attaches going there, but only if you get the real thing.
Declaring a generic sort of god, a supreme being, is almost a tautology
itself. Find a supreme being, He's God. But that is not
what people want. People want the one-and-only, genuine original creator
of heaven and earth. I think the atheists that are HERE on alt.atheism
want the same thing but they don't want counterfeits, hence the demand for
proof that otherwise is not necessary.
.
User: "thomas p."

Title: Re: Evidence for the Existence of God 30 Nov 2007 12:45:01 AM
"Michael" <newsuser2@orneveien.org> skrev i en meddelelse
news:pan.2007.11.29.22.41.23.843263@orneveien.org...

On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 03:09:26 +0100, Tokay Pino Gris wrote:

Michael wrote:


Is it
the right size and shape? Does it "seem old"? Is it in the right
place?
If all of these things seem true, then you are willing to consider that
it
is the Leaning Tower of Pisa. If everything but "place" is correct,
then
you have a mock-up, a copy. If place is correct but it doesn't look
like
your expectations suggest it should, maybe you made a wrong turn nearby.


So, if you have a "god" that does all the things theists claim he
does... is he a "mock-up"?

It might not be THE tower of Pisa and it might not be THE god, but the
attributes are there.... So, it still would a crooked tower and it still
would be a god. But crooked towers CAN be build.


I see that you understand me, and you can understand why I am not trying
to define or prove the "one true god" because that is a thing that I
believe cannot be done.

Going to a place called Pisa is easy; just fine a place that calls itself
Pisa -- it is self-defining, a tautology. Once there, find a tower. By
definition, it must be the Tower of Pisa. Does it lean? If so, then it
is the Leaning Tower of Pisa.

But that is not what people want. They want to know that it is the
one-and-only, genuine original Leaning Tower of Pisa -- why? Because some
sort of glory attaches going there, but only if you get the real thing.

Declaring a generic sort of god, a supreme being, is almost a tautology
itself. Find a supreme being, He's God.

Where? So far that god is claimed not shown to exist. Your analogy does
not work.
But that is not

what people want. People want the one-and-only, genuine original creator
of heaven and earth. I think the atheists that are HERE on alt.atheism
want the same thing but they don't want counterfeits, hence the demand for
proof that otherwise is not necessary.


Why do you talk about what atheists want? You are saying your god exists.
Atheists ask for evidence. You say there is none. We never said that we
wanted any kind of god; we are only asking about the one you claim exists.
If you did not want any questions, why did you tell us about your beliefs in
the first place?
.
User: "Michael Gray"

Title: Re: Evidence for the Existence of God 30 Nov 2007 07:04:21 AM
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 07:45:01 +0100, "thomas p." <gudloos@yahoo.com>
wrote:


"Michael" <newsuser2@orneveien.org> skrev i en meddelelse
news:pan.2007.11.29.22.41.23.843263@orneveien.org...

On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 03:09:26 +0100, Tokay Pino Gris wrote:

Michael wrote:


Is it
the right size and shape? Does it "seem old"? Is it in the right
place?
If all of these things seem true, then you are willing to consider that
it
is the Leaning Tower of Pisa. If everything but "place" is correct,
then
you have a mock-up, a copy. If place is correct but it doesn't look
like
your expectations suggest it should, maybe you made a wrong turn nearby.


So, if you have a "god" that does all the things theists claim he
does... is he a "mock-up"?

It might not be THE tower of Pisa and it might not be THE god, but the
attributes are there.... So, it still would a crooked tower and it still
would be a god. But crooked towers CAN be build.


I see that you understand me, and you can understand why I am not trying
to define or prove the "one true god" because that is a thing that I
believe cannot be done.

Going to a place called Pisa is easy; just fine a place that calls itself
Pisa -- it is self-defining, a tautology. Once there, find a tower. By
definition, it must be the Tower of Pisa. Does it lean? If so, then it
is the Leaning Tower of Pisa.

But that is not what people want. They want to know that it is the
one-and-only, genuine original Leaning Tower of Pisa -- why? Because some
sort of glory attaches going there, but only if you get the real thing.

Declaring a generic sort of god, a supreme being, is almost a tautology
itself. Find a supreme being, He's God.


Where? So far that god is claimed not shown to exist. Your analogy does
not work.


But that is not

what people want. People want the one-and-only, genuine original creator
of heaven and earth. I think the atheists that are HERE on alt.atheism
want the same thing but they don't want counterfeits, hence the demand for
proof that otherwise is not necessary.



Why do you talk about what atheists want? You are saying your god exists.
Atheists ask for evidence. You say there is none. We never said that we
wanted any kind of god; we are only asking about the one you claim exists.
If you did not want any questions, why did you tell us about your beliefs in
the first place?

Because he is a viciously dishonest friggin' wanker.
.

User: "Michael"

Title: Re: Evidence for the Existence of God 30 Nov 2007 01:50:41 PM
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 07:45:01 +0100, thomas p. wrote:

"Michael" <newsuser2@orneveien.org> skrev i en meddelelse

I see that you understand me, and you can understand why I am not
trying to define or prove the "one true god" because that is a thing
that I believe cannot be done.
[snip]
Declaring a generic sort of god, a supreme being, is almost a tautology
itself. Find a supreme being, He's God.


Where? So far that god is claimed not shown to exist. Your analogy
does not work.

That is unsurprising; the whole reason for the existence of this group is
disbelief.
Nothing that is real can be known directly. All knowledge of things that
are real are processed by our senses, therefore we always and only have
"evidence" of things. The whole purpose of virtual reality is to trick
the senses; it *can* be done.
Things that are eventually judged real have properties of persistence and
predictability (among other properties). Babies develop an awareness of
the permanence of objects; they do not start out with this awareness.
If God is real (in any flavor or description), then hopefully he is
permanent, persistent and predictable. If not, then the whole thing is
like a dream and might as well not be real. In my experience, the God I
believe exists is indeed permanent, persistent and predictable within
somewhat fuzzy bounds that I have not tried to establish. It is a bit
like a shortwave radio station; the station always broadcasts (for this
analogy it does), but propagation varies and some days you are not going
to hear the station, then on other days you will.

But that is not
what people want. People want the one-and-only, genuine original
creator of heaven and earth. I think the atheists that are HERE on
alt.atheism want the same thing but they don't want counterfeits, hence
the demand for proof that otherwise is not necessary.


Why do you talk about what atheists want? You are saying your god
exists. Atheists ask for evidence. You say there is none.

By simplifying, you break the accuracy of the argument.
Evidence is either abundant or non-existent depending on what you mean by
"evidence". If the word "evidence" is prefixed by conditions that
effectively turn the word "evidence" into the word "proof", then it is not
available. If you allow evidence to have its natural meaning, then it is
abundant, but quite often not able to narrow down the cause to a single
cause.
For instance, if you see some water on the floor, that is evidence. It
may have many causes. If rain is falling outside, that is evidence.
These two combined suggest someone tracked the water inside from outside,
BUT it could also be a spill from a glass of water. More evidence
gatherned narrows the choices.
SOME atheists know perfectly well what to demand in order to exclude a
type of God they want not to exist.

We never said that we
wanted any kind of god; we are only asking about the one you claim
exists. If you did not want any questions, why did you tell us about
your beliefs in the first place?

Atheists mistake my reason for being here. I cannot speak to other
peoples' reasons for being here. I have no illusion of making any of you
believe anything at all. I find it useful as a kind of "mirror" of my
thinking and ideas to apply these ideas to non-believers. It is like
sandpaper to wood, it polishes the wood and makes it better.
Your disbelief forces me to examine my beliefs, perhaps cast out some that
are not well-founded. What remains is well-founded and has withstood the
sandpaper of alt.atheism. Not many theists would be so open to challenge,
though I must admit that a great many people here are not very civil so I
have them blocked. You would not use 40 grit sandpaper when finishing
wood, you'd use something finer.
Some have argued that we all have the same morals; I do not think that is
the case and the uncivility here is just amazing. Of course, it is also
pretty bad on alt.religion.mormon but I think no Mormons actually go
there, except maybe once in a while to see if it is still a cesspool.
.
User: "thomas p."

Title: Re: Evidence for the Existence of God 01 Dec 2007 01:32:46 AM
"Michael" <newsuser2@orneveien.org> skrev i en meddelelse
news:pan.2007.11.30.19.50.38.640042@orneveien.org...

On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 07:45:01 +0100, thomas p. wrote:


"Michael" <newsuser2@orneveien.org> skrev i en meddelelse

I see that you understand me, and you can understand why I am not
trying to define or prove the "one true god" because that is a thing
that I believe cannot be done.
[snip]
Declaring a generic sort of god, a supreme being, is almost a tautology
itself. Find a supreme being, He's God.


Where? So far that god is claimed not shown to exist. Your analogy
does not work.


That is unsurprising; the whole reason for the existence of this group is
disbelief.

That is not why your analogy does not work. It assumes that the existence
of a god has been established.


Nothing that is real can be known directly. All knowledge of things that
are real are processed by our senses, therefore we always and only have
"evidence" of things. The whole purpose of virtual reality is to trick
the senses; it *can* be done.

Which has nothing to do with the point. You have provided no evidence.


Things that are eventually judged real have properties of persistence and
predictability (among other properties). Babies develop an awareness of
the permanence of objects; they do not start out with this awareness.

If God is real (in any flavor or description), then hopefully he is
permanent, persistent and predictable. If not, then the whole thing is
like a dream and might as well not be real. In my experience, the God I
believe exists is indeed permanent, persistent and predictable within
somewhat fuzzy bounds that I have not tried to establish. It is a bit
like a shortwave radio station; the station always broadcasts (for this
analogy it does), but propagation varies and some days you are not going
to hear the station, then on other days you will.

The above says absolutely nothing about the point at hand, i.e. you have
provided no evidence.


But that is not
what people want. People want the one-and-only, genuine original
creator of heaven and earth. I think the atheists that are HERE on
alt.atheism want the same thing but they don't want counterfeits, hence
the demand for proof that otherwise is not necessary.


Why do you talk about what atheists want? You are saying your god
exists. Atheists ask for evidence. You say there is none.


By simplifying, you break the accuracy of the argument.

The argument is simple; you have no evidence. Your continued and, I
believe, deliberate obscurantism (as richly demonstrated in your present
post) impresses nobody; it merely reveals your fear and your dishonesty.


Evidence is either abundant or non-existent depending on what you mean by
"evidence". If the word "evidence" is prefixed by conditions that
effectively turn the word "evidence" into the word "proof", then it is not
available. If you allow evidence to have its natural meaning, then it is
abundant, but quite often not able to narrow down the cause to a single
cause.

You are still evading the issue. You have provided no evidence. Proof is
not being asked for, evidence is.


For instance, if you see some water on the floor, that is evidence. It
may have many causes. If rain is falling outside, that is evidence.
These two combined suggest someone tracked the water inside from outside,
BUT it could also be a spill from a glass of water. More evidence
gatherned narrows the choices.

SOME atheists know perfectly well what to demand in order to exclude a
type of God they want not to exist.

Still no evidence.


We never said that we
wanted any kind of god; we are only asking about the one you claim
exists. If you did not want any questions, why did you tell us about
your beliefs in the first place?


Atheists mistake my reason for being here. I cannot speak to other
peoples' reasons for being here. I have no illusion of making any of you
believe anything at all. I find it useful as a kind of "mirror" of my
thinking and ideas to apply these ideas to non-believers. It is like
sandpaper to wood, it polishes the wood and makes it better.

Your disbelief forces me to examine my beliefs, perhaps cast out some that
are not well-founded. What remains is well-founded and has withstood the
sandpaper of alt.atheism. Not many theists would be so open to challenge,
though I must admit that a great many people here are not very civil so I
have them blocked. You would not use 40 grit sandpaper when finishing
wood, you'd use something finer.

Some have argued that we all have the same morals; I do not think that is
the case and the uncivility here is just amazing. Of course, it is also
pretty bad on alt.religion.mormon but I think no Mormons actually go
there, except maybe once in a while to see if it is still a cesspool.

You have still provided no evidence, and you continue to misrepresent what
atheists have been posting.
.

User: "Tokay Pino Gris"

Title: Re: Evidence for the Existence of God 30 Nov 2007 08:49:08 PM
Michael wrote:

On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 07:45:01 +0100, thomas p. wrote:


"Michael" <newsuser2@orneveien.org> skrev i en meddelelse

I see that you understand me, and you can understand why I am not
trying to define or prove the "one true god" because that is a thing
that I believe cannot be done.
[snip]
Declaring a generic sort of god, a supreme being, is almost a tautology
itself. Find a supreme being, He's God.

Where? So far that god is claimed not shown to exist. Your analogy
does not work.


That is unsurprising; the whole reason for the existence of this group is
disbelief.

Again and again:
LACK of belief.
And the reason why this group exists is not that. If that was all, then
it would be nothing.
We want to test it, we want to hear arguments, we want to MAKE
arguments... but so far, all we get is blabber.
Or rather, what we get is NOT evidence.


Nothing that is real can be known directly. All knowledge of things that
are real are processed by our senses, therefore we always and only have
"evidence" of things.

EHm... What was the word? Differnet meanings of "real". Different
meanings of "belief"?
The whole purpose of virtual reality is to trick

the senses; it *can* be done.

Things that are eventually judged real have properties of persistence and
predictability (among other properties). Babies develop an awareness of
the permanence of objects; they do not start out with this awareness.

Yes.


If God is real (in any flavor or description), then hopefully he is
permanent, persistent and predictable. If not, then the whole thing is
like a dream and might as well not be real. In my experience, the God I
believe exists is indeed permanent, persistent and predictable within
somewhat fuzzy bounds that I have not tried to establish.

That is of course allowed, but it is NOT allowed to be called science.
It is a bit

like a shortwave radio station; the station always broadcasts (for this
analogy it does), but propagation varies and some days you are not going
to hear the station, then on other days you will.

That means you can actually PICK up the signal. I.e. measure it. And so
forth. Which "gods" of whatever kind, so far failed to do.


But that is not
what people want. People want the one-and-only, genuine original
creator of heaven and earth. I think the atheists that are HERE on
alt.atheism want the same thing but they don't want counterfeits, hence
the demand for proof that otherwise is not necessary.

Why do you talk about what atheists want? You are saying your god
exists. Atheists ask for evidence. You say there is none.


By simplifying, you break the accuracy of the argument.

Evidence is either abundant or non-existent depending on what you mean by
"evidence". If the word "evidence" is prefixed by conditions that
effectively turn the word "evidence" into the word "proof", then it is not
available.

Ah. "Evidence" is evidence. No matter what. it turn into "proof" if it
fits your prediction based on your hypothesis. If it doesn't, then it
STILL is evidence.
If you allow evidence to have its natural meaning, then it is

abundant, but quite often not able to narrow down the cause to a single
cause.

Nope. Sorry.


For instance, if you see some water on the floor, that is evidence.

YES! (Caps intentional)
It

may have many causes. If rain is falling outside, that is evidence.
These two combined suggest someone tracked the water inside from outside,
BUT it could also be a spill from a glass of water. More evidence
gatherned narrows the choices.

Exactly!


SOME atheists know perfectly well what to demand in order to exclude a
type of God they want not to exist.

The water is evidence. It is the fact. Where did it come from? It is
raining outside.
So, how did that water get in the floor?
IF you find wet boots just beyond the water, then that is also evidence.
So, for a "god" you still lack that wet boots, so to speak.


We never said that we
wanted any kind of god; we are only asking about the one you claim
exists. If you did not want any questions, why did you tell us about
your beliefs in the first place?


Atheists mistake my reason for being here. I cannot speak to other
peoples' reasons for being here. I have no illusion of making any of you
believe anything at all. I find it useful as a kind of "mirror" of my
thinking and ideas to apply these ideas to non-believers. It is like
sandpaper to wood, it polishes the wood and makes it better.

It MIGHT make you consider...


Your disbelief forces me to examine my beliefs, perhaps cast out some that
are not well-founded. What remains is well-founded and has withstood the
sandpaper of alt.atheism. Not many theists would be so open to challenge,
though I must admit that a great many people here are not very civil so I
have them blocked. You would not use 40 grit sandpaper when finishing
wood, you'd use something finer.

Yes, that happens. I'd dare say MOST theist we get in here are not open
to that.
But once they come in here they MAKE the challenge. And most don't
really like it when we pick up that challenge...


Some have argued that we all have the same morals;

Yes. I have. And I have data to back it up. You know that.
I do not think that is

the case and the uncivility here is just amazing.

Imagine for a second what we would get if we posted to a mormon ng....
Of course, it is also

pretty bad on alt.religion.mormon but I think no Mormons actually go
there, except maybe once in a while to see if it is still a cesspool.

Kind of QED, don't you think?
Tokay
--
Q: Why did the tachyon cross the road?
A: Because it was on the other side.
.
User: "Michael"

Title: Re: Evidence for the Existence of God 01 Dec 2007 09:59:20 PM
On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 03:49:08 +0100, Tokay Pino Gris wrote:

like a shortwave radio station; the station always broadcasts (for this
analogy it does), but propagation varies and some days you are not
going to hear the station, then on other days you will.


That means you can actually PICK up the signal. I.e. measure it. And so
forth. Which "gods" of whatever kind, so far failed to do.

I really don't want to get started on a whole 'nother thread, but yes,
actually I *can* tune this station pretty much any time I want, in any
place I have ever been, and for 18 of my years outside the continental
United States (I initially wrote "Untied" United states which also seemed
somewhat appropriate).
I could write a lot on this (in fact, I did, but have chosen to erase it,
wrong forum for the task).
It is essentially the same steps used for self hypnosis which you or some
other astute observer is sure to observe even after I have made the
observation. The difference is that you stop after the mind-clearing
step. You just stop. No expectations, no preconceptions, you have to be
able to stop all that.
You also have to have a purpose. Sometimes maybe you just want to feel
God, well okay you might get something. But if you have a specific
purpose, and you get a specific answer, then you can easily validate
whether the answer "worked". One such thing is fortunate and perhaps
lucky; but a long series of such things stretches the meaning of "luck"
and starts to look like "god".
I do not have much of this sort of thing lately, maybe I have become too
skeptical. But during the time I was traveling the world and sometimes was
in difficult places, yes, tuning "God" was reliable and the information I
received was correct, relevant and reliable. I have been on both sides of
this. No matter how skeptical I become, I cannot argue against my own
evidence.
There is one story I think I will tell, then I shall move any more stories
out of your forum. This one is about evidence, very good evidence, of the
phenomenon called "out of body experience." I will give as much detail as
I think will describe the story without compromising his privacy. I have
absolutely no idea where this person is today; this event happened quite a
long time ago (around 1989) and is written somewhat in my journal but I'm
not going to dig into it for details I'm not going to post here anyway.
There was a young man that worked for me; although that's an exaggeration,
he didn't much feel like working for anyone and was rather difficult at
times. During one of his troubled times he crashed his automobile --
well, I think not his but the one he borrowed, into a light-post in
Honolulu (I'll see if I can find the spot: 21 17'05" N 157 50'07" W on
Google Earth). This is about where it happened; he was heading northeast.
I didn't see the accident, I read the report on it however and know the
street well enough to guess somewhat accurately at the location. He
barely survived it. He was unconscious for quite a long time and it took
rescue some time to cut him out of the car. he had slid down under the
*passenger* side and the dashboard then crumpled somewhat onto him.
Since he worked for me, I visited him in the hospital. Being as we were
in the Navy, neither of us had family, so the only visitors anyone gets
are whoever wants to visit, and as he was somewhat difficult, did not have
any friends so far as I know. On that day, I had obtained some details of
the rescue and so far as I know, those details had not been published and
were not known by hospital staff and certainly not by this individual.
He asked many questions about my beliefs in religion, which up to this
time had never been a topic of discussion for him. When he was satisfied
with my answers then he told me his experience. He had been watching his
own rescue, from a virtual position in the air above the car, and he
described with great accuracy the details of getting his body out from
under the wrong side of the car, a detail I would not have expected him to
know or guess at unless he was describing what he had indeed seen from a
vantage point outside his body. He observed the rescuers performing
resuscitation efforts, and that is when things finally went black for him
and he woke up considerably later in the hospital. It
was important for him to NOT publish this information to anyone, this "out
of body" experience; he did not want to be mocked. He had no motivation to
tell this story and indeed, he was very cautious before telling me.
This event was *proof* to him, *evidence* for me, and *anecdote* for you.
That's the nature of the beast. I cannot give you proof nor evidence, I
can give you only anecdotes.
Sincerely,
Michael
.
User: "Tokay Pino Gris"

Title: Re: Evidence for the Existence of God 07 Dec 2007 07:38:25 PM
Michael wrote:

On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 03:49:08 +0100, Tokay Pino Gris wrote:

like a shortwave radio station; the station always broadcasts (for this
analogy it does), but propagation varies and some days you are not
going to hear the station, then on other days you will.

That means you can actually PICK up the signal. I.e. measure it. And so
forth. Which "gods" of whatever kind, so far failed to do.


I really don't want to get started on a whole 'nother thread, but yes,
actually I *can* tune this station pretty much any time I want, in any
place I have ever been, and for 18 of my years outside the continental
United States (I initially wrote "Untied" United states which also seemed
somewhat appropriate).

Probably. But this is NOT objective evidence. It is SUBJECTIVE.


I could write a lot on this (in fact, I did, but have chosen to erase it,
wrong forum for the task).

It is essentially the same steps used for self hypnosis which you or some
other astute observer is sure to observe even after I have made the
observation. The difference is that you stop after the mind-clearing
step. You just stop. No expectations, no preconceptions, you have to be
able to stop all that.

You should probably do some reading about eastern teachings. You will be
quite surprised, I guess. It is IN there.


You also have to have a purpose. Sometimes maybe you just want to feel
God, well okay you might get something. But if you have a specific
purpose, and you get a specific answer, then you can easily validate
whether the answer "worked". One such thing is fortunate and perhaps
lucky; but a long series of such things stretches the meaning of "luck"
and starts to look like "god".

"look like" god is hardly worth much.


I do not have much of this sort of thing lately, maybe I have become too
skeptical.

That's a start. Skepticism is good. The "hardcore" theists might tell
you otherwise, but think about it. What is the opposite of "skepticism"?
But during the time I was traveling the world and sometimes was

in difficult places, yes, tuning "God" was reliable and the information I
received was correct, relevant and reliable.

We know that using a pendulum works. Nothing actually supernatural in
that. As long as you ask "the pendulum" questions your subconscious CAN
know or better yet, DOES know, whether you are consciously aware of it
or not. What you do is actually just another way of asking your
subconscious mind.
I have been on both sides of

this. No matter how skeptical I become, I cannot argue against my own
evidence.

But what does that "evidence" say?


There is one story I think I will tell, then I shall move any more stories
out of your forum. This one is about evidence, very good evidence, of the
phenomenon called "out of body experience." I will give as much detail as
I think will describe the story without compromising his privacy. I have
absolutely no idea where this person is today; this event happened quite a
long time ago (around 1989) and is written somewhat in my journal but I'm
not going to dig into it for details I'm not going to post here anyway.

There was a young man that worked for me; although that's an exaggeration,
he didn't much feel like working for anyone and was rather difficult at
times. During one of his troubled times he crashed his automobile --
well, I think not his but the one he borrowed, into a light-post in
Honolulu (I'll see if I can find the spot: 21 17'05" N 157 50'07" W on
Google Earth). This is about where it happened; he was heading northeast.
I didn't see the accident, I read the report on it however and know the
street well enough to guess somewhat accurately at the location. He
barely survived it. He was unconscious for quite a long time and it took
rescue some time to cut him out of the car. he had slid down under the
*passenger* side and the dashboard then crumpled somewhat onto him.

Since he worked for me, I visited him in the hospital. Being as we were
in the Navy, neither of us had family, so the only visitors anyone gets
are whoever wants to visit, and as he was somewhat difficult, did not have
any friends so far as I know. On that day, I had obtained some details of
the rescue and so far as I know, those details had not been published and
were not known by hospital staff and certainly not by this individual.

He asked many questions about my beliefs in religion, which up to this
time had never been a topic of discussion for him. When he was satisfied
with my answers then he told me his experience. He had been watching his
own rescue, from a virtual position in the air above the car, and he
described with great accuracy the details of getting his body out from
under the wrong side of the car, a detail I would not have expected him to
know or guess at unless he was describing what he had indeed seen from a
vantage point outside his body. He observed the rescuers performing
resuscitation efforts, and that is when things finally went black for him
and he woke up considerably later in the hospital. It
was important for him to NOT publish this information to anyone, this "out
of body" experience; he did not want to be mocked. He had no motivation to
tell this story and indeed, he was very cautious before telling me.

Nothing so extraordinary about that. LOTS of stories like that.


This event was *proof* to him, *evidence* for me,

But not "objective" evidence. "Subjective".

and *anecdote* for you.

Yes.

That's the nature of the beast. I cannot give you proof nor evidence, I
can give you only anecdotes.

Yes. Anecdotes are ok. As long as you don't claim that they are "objective".
Mind you, I know stories like this. Not that rare, actually. Some of
them are even checkable. The facts of those "out of body" experiences
are even true. There are, however, other explanations for them.
One in every 200.000 patients undergoing anesthesia is having an
"awareness" phenomenon.
One explanation is that the brain still receives sensory input, no
matter how deep the narcosis. And that the brain then computes an image
(a thing the brain is famous for.... all you experience IS computed
data. You NEVER get "raw" data.).
Tokay
--
The chief cause of problems is solutions.
.
User: "Michael Gray"

Title: Re: Evidence for the Existence of God 07 Dec 2007 08:15:52 PM
On Sat, 08 Dec 2007 02:38:25 +0100, Tokay Pino Gris
<tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote:

Michael wrote:

:

I do not have much of this sort of thing lately, maybe I have become too
skeptical.


That's a start. Skepticism is good. The "hardcore" theists might tell
you otherwise, but think about it. What is the opposite of "skepticism"?

1) Sheer unalloyed gullibility.
2) Barnham-fodder.
3) Theism.
.






User: "Tokay Pino Gris"

Title: Re: Evidence for the Existence of God 30 Nov 2007 08:18:11 PM
Michael wrote:

On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 03:09:26 +0100, Tokay Pino Gris wrote:

Michael wrote:


Is it
the right size and shape? Does it "seem old"? Is it in the right place?
If all of these things seem true, then you are willing to consider that it
is the Leaning Tower of Pisa. If everything but "place" is correct, then
you have a mock-up, a copy. If place is correct but it doesn't look like
your expectations suggest it should, maybe you made a wrong turn nearby.

So, if you have a "god" that does all the things theists claim he
does... is he a "mock-up"?

It might not be THE tower of Pisa and it might not be THE god, but the
attributes are there.... So, it still would a crooked tower and it still
would be a god. But crooked towers CAN be build.


I see that you understand me, and you can understand why I am not trying
to define or prove the "one true god" because that is a thing that I
believe cannot be done.

Going to a place called Pisa is easy; just fine a place that calls itself
Pisa -- it is self-defining, a tautology. Once there, find a tower. By
definition, it must be the Tower of Pisa. Does it lean? If so, then it
is the Leaning Tower of Pisa.

But that is not what people want. They want to know that it is the
one-and-only, genuine original Leaning Tower of Pisa -- why? Because some
sort of glory attaches going there, but only if you get the real thing.

Declaring a generic sort of god, a supreme being, is almost a tautology
itself. Find a supreme being, He's God. But that is not
what people want. People want the one-and-only, genuine original creator
of heaven and earth. I think the atheists that are HERE on alt.atheism
want the same thing but they don't want counterfeits, hence the demand for
proof that otherwise is not necessary.


--
Q: Why did the tachyon cross the road?
A: Because it was on the other side.
.

User: "Tokay Pino Gris"

Title: Re: Evidence for the Existence of God 30 Nov 2007 08:32:49 PM
Michael wrote:

On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 03:09:26 +0100, Tokay Pino Gris wrote:

Michael wrote:


Is it
the right size and shape? Does it "seem old"? Is it in the right place?
If all of these things seem true, then you are willing to consider that it
is the Leaning Tower of Pisa. If everything but "place" is correct, then
you have a mock-up, a copy. If place is correct but it doesn't look like
your expectations suggest it should, maybe you made a wrong turn nearby.

So, if you have a "god" that does all the things theists claim he
does... is he a "mock-up"?

It might not be THE tower of Pisa and it might not be THE god, but the
attributes are there.... So, it still would a crooked tower and it still
would be a god. But crooked towers CAN be build.


I see that you understand me, and you can understand why I am not trying
to define or prove the "one true god" because that is a thing that I
believe cannot be done.

Yes. BUT.
(There has to be a "but")
You have to define what a god is. Whether it is the one true one, or any.


Going to a place called Pisa is easy; just fine a place that calls itself
Pisa -- it is self-defining, a tautology. Once there, find a tower. By
definition, it must be the Tower of Pisa. Does it lean? If so, then it
is the Leaning Tower of Pisa.

Yes. It then is the leaning tower of Pisa.
To put this into "Douglas Adams"-Perspective, on every planet there is a
drink that calles itself "Gin Tonic". It might be "ginandonix" or some
such.... but the name is always there.
:-)


But that is not what people want. They want to know that it is the
one-and-only, genuine original Leaning Tower of Pisa -- why? Because some
sort of glory attaches going there, but only if you get the real thing.

But That is the question? CAN they know it is THE ONE?
Fact is, strictly speaking, they can't.