[net.religion] Believing In God

merrill@rex.DEC (02/19/85)

What if there were a Large Monolith discovered on one of the outer planets
that had engraved on it in 2000 earth languages "Greetings from God", would
that make it easier for you to believe in Him?  Would that make it too easy?

My personal belief is that God chooses many ways to reveal himself to mankind
but Totally Objective Evidence (TOEs) is NOT one such method because He chooses
for us to exercise our "faith", our "hope", and above all our "love".

If you could choose HOW God would reveal himself to you personally, what would
it be?  Like George Burns' "God" He would be invisible, inaudible, and perhaps
incomprehensible to anyone but yourself: personal and subjective.


rmm

mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (02/20/85)

In article <642@decwrl.UUCP> merrill@rex.DEC writes:
> What if there were a Large Monolith discovered on one of the outer planets
> that had engraved on it in 2000 earth languages "Greetings from God", would
> that make it easier for you to believe in Him?  Would that make it too easy?

I would wonder who was the practical joker.  Perhaps some alien?

> My personal belief is that God chooses many ways to reveal himself to mankind
> but Totally Objective Evidence (TOEs) is NOT one such method because He chooses
> for us to exercise our "faith", our "hope", and above all our "love".

Right there in the Bible are numerous purportedly undeniable miracles.
Such as the opening of the Red Sea, etc.  Such as the stopping of the sun.
Why should I insist on anything less?

> If you could choose HOW God would reveal himself to you personally, what would
> it be?  Like George Burns' "God" He would be invisible, inaudible, and perhaps
> incomprehensible to anyone but yourself: personal and subjective.

If that happens to me, then I'll believe.  No sweat.  But I doubt that I will
be personally enlightened by any of the myriad dieties whose adherents claim
visitations.  Nor would I be able to distinguish whether the diety was
showing me truth or falsehood.  Contrary to many popular folk traditions,
I don't see that I could distinguish Satan from God from any other
sufficiently manipulative being.
-- 

Mike Huybensz		...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh

rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Professor Wagstaff) (02/21/85)

> What if there were a Large Monolith discovered on one of the outer planets
> that had engraved on it in 2000 earth languages "Greetings from God", would
> that make it easier for you to believe in Him?  Would that make it too easy?

But there isn't one, is there?  (Not that you've seen, anyway, unless you're
more well-traveled than I presume :-)  The fact that you pose the question at
all seems to indicate that you wonder why *I* (i.e., *anyone* who chooses not
to believe) chooses not to believe.  When an assumption is ingrained in a
mindset, it's often hard to understand why others don't hold it also.  Such
assumptions are the ones that one should always examine closely.

> My personal belief is that God chooses many ways to reveal himself to mankind
> but Totally Objective Evidence (TOEs) is NOT one such method because He
> chooses for us to exercise our "faith", our "hope", and above all our "love".

Let's seriously examine this statement.  Is it that Merrill has had real
information provided to him indicating that there is a god who fits the
description he offers, or has he formulated this notion that, since he
believes that god MUST exist (presuming in advance), builds a definition of
god such that god's "not wanting" to reveal itself explicitly is perceived
as a REASON for the lack of evidence?  In other words, does god really fit
the mold that Merrill has built, or has he built a mold that *accounts for*
the lack of totally objective evidence, by fitting the claim that "god doesn't
want us to have proof, he wants us to have faith" into the mold as an after the
fact "explanation"?

("My god has no TOEs."  "How do you know he exists?"  "...")  :-)

> If you could choose HOW God would reveal himself to you personally, what would
> it be?  Like George Burns' "God" He would be invisible, inaudible, and perhaps
> incomprehensible to anyone but yourself: personal and subjective.

First of all, you ask *me* to choose, and then you *tell* me what it's going to
be like!!!!  Secondly, since so many people experience god in this way, and
since so many people still wind up with completely different perspectives on
the universe (often accusing those with other perspectives of being misled),
and since these completely different perspectives often result in bloody
conflict, torture, repression, and death, *IF* (and this IS an assumption)
the god we are talking about exists and is benevolent, I'd venture that 1) this
personal subjective perspective interconflict is not its doing, and 2) that
what was perceived as god in one's personal subjective perspective was not god
at all, despite one's desire to believe that that's so.

Comments?
-- 
Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen.
					Rich Rosen    pyuxd!rlr

barry@mit-eddie.UUCP (Mikki Barry) (02/21/85)

But Michael, how can you possibly say that you could not distinguish satan
from god?  Satan is the one with the cloven hooves, tail, and horns.....or
was that the god Pan?  Hmmmm.  I guess the description of gods or devils
depends on what time period you live in and not on some unquestionable 
TRUTH.

I wonder if most of us could tell the difference.  Certainly not by appearance.
Especially since Jesus and Mary are depicted as white skinned blue eyed
caucasians.  I wonder how many caucasians existed in the Middle East at
that time.

One man's god is another man's devil.

jimc@haddock.UUCP (02/21/85)

I would also like to know what is meant by "objective evidence" of God's
existence, anyway.  There cannot be such a thing.   The example of
the monoliths is a good one;  or, try this:  if you were to see an angel
appear to you and tell you that there is a God and that He loves you,
would that convince you that there really is a God?  That angel could
be anything:  a hallucination or an alien being, for example.

You see, the only proof of God's existence is God Himself.  No one
can produce God in His Infinity to offer as "objective evidence."

Some people, as is their right, have assumed that God does not exist
because He is not proven.  That assumption falters seriously when
one realizes that He cannot be proven.

I, too, believe that God wishes us to find Him through our faith.
It seems there is no other way.  I suppose one can make the argument
that God could have planted the certainty of His existence into our
minds at the moment of birth, so that we would not raise any questions.
Still, that would prove nothing except that we believed in Him.
Is it not scientifically reasonable to assume that such a tendency would
have evolved naturally and with no intervention from a divine force?

mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (02/21/85)

In article <358@haddock.UUCP> jimc@haddock.UUCP writes:
> I would also like to know what is meant by "objective evidence" of God's
> existence, anyway.  There cannot be such a thing.   The example of
> the monoliths is a good one;  or, try this:  if you were to see an angel
> appear to you and tell you that there is a God and that He loves you,
> would that convince you that there really is a God?  That angel could
> be anything:  a hallucination or an alien being, for example.

You miss the point.  I am looking for evidence of any sufficiently superior
being to convince me of its existence.  If it is sufficiently superior, and
cares to convince me, then I'll do whatever it asks because I really have
no good alternative.  (There is a book about human/superior_being game
theory-- forgive my oversimplification.)  It need not be the Judeo-Xian
god: merely something able to control my mind.

> You see, the only proof of God's existence is God Himself.  No one
> can produce God in His Infinity to offer as "objective evidence."
> 
> Some people, as is their right, have assumed that God does not exist
> because He is not proven.  That assumption falters seriously when
> one realizes that He cannot be proven.

That doesn't matter.  What matters is what the superior being wants from
you.  Gotta have some evidence of that, or else you won't know what to
do.

> I, too, believe that God wishes us to find Him through our faith.
> It seems there is no other way.

Whatever makes you think a superior being would want you to find him?
Do you want protozoa to find you?

> I suppose one can make the argument
> that God could have planted the certainty of His existence into our
> minds at the moment of birth, so that we would not raise any questions.
> Still, that would prove nothing except that we believed in Him.
> Is it not scientifically reasonable to assume that such a tendency would
> have evolved naturally and with no intervention from a divine force?

Yes, we could have certainty planted within us.  It is the most convincing
proof possible.  But we still wouldn't know anything else about what
convinced us.  Could be god, could be satan, could be Ubizmo.  The certainty
could include a certainty about itself, that it was planted by the
superior being.

Sounds like phenomenology to me....
-- 

Mike Huybensz		...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh

jtm@syteka.UUCP (Jim McCrae) (03/05/85)

I believe in God. I don't go to any church or adhere to any
religion, and I don't believe I'm meat with software in it,
either. I'm happy with an old line of logic that has yet to
be improved upon, in my humble, somewhat educated opinion.
What part of me is consciousness with no object before it?
When I think or am at all aware of myself, I am myself as
an object of some consciousness. If I move one step "deeper"
into my "self", I am aware of my being conscious. "I" must
always be aware of something; that is the nature of being
one of us separated-out things, we who see a whole world
distinct from ourselves. At some level in the mechanics of
the process of awareness, there is the "stuff" of consciousness,
the raw being of consciousness. God is right there. And I'll
probably never find out any more about it until I die. Probably.
I frequently think Buddhism explains things in a way I can
agree with, but then they get into the pain and denial and
pointlessness of it all and I get skeptical. Begins to sound
like a few Botthisattvas had a grudge against an old girlfriend.

Humbly submitted by: Jim McCrae - {decvax,hplabs}!sytek!jtm