What does God look like?

[Jack_of_Blades]

there is plenty of evidence that there is a god. but as long as your closed minded you will not see or accept the evidence.

However there isn't. At all. Evidence needs to be able to be documented and repeatable. And it can't be. But that's

kind of the point of religion: If you need evidence for your faith, then you don't have faith.

Edited October 19, 2014 by Jack_of_Blades

[danielost]

However there isn't. At all. Evidence needs to be able to be documented and repeatable. And it can't be. But that's

kind of the point of religion: If you need evidence for your faith, then you don't have faith.

as i said you have to be open to see it. newton did not discover gravity. he was the fdirst to be open minded enough to observe it. but gravity was there for a very long time before newton wrote his laws of motion. the evidence was there, but it was niether documented nor repeatable.

[Jack_of_Blades]

as i said you have to be open to see it. newton did not discover gravity. he was the fdirst to be open minded enough to observe it. but gravity was there for a very long time before newton wrote his laws of motion. the evidence was there, but it was niether documented nor repeatable.

But the evidence is repeatable (well now at least). And gravity was very much repeatable and documented before Newton. Back to Galileo actually. Newton

proposed the idea of universal gravity based on pre-existing evidence and ideas.

There is just a major fallacy in requiring evidence for a creator. If one it exists, it would work well beyond the confines of what we can and can not prove just by

being omnipotent. You need faith to believe in a god, faith without god is like science without evidence: they both end up as Creationism.

Edited October 19, 2014 by Jack_of_Blades

[danielost]

But the evidence is repeatable (well now at least). And gravity was very much repeatable and documented before Newton. Back to Galileo actually. Newton

proposed the idea of universal gravity based on pre-existing evidence and ideas.

There is just a major fallacy in requiring evidence for a creator. If one it exists, it would work well beyond the confines of what we can and can not prove just by

being omnipotent. You need faith to believe in a god, faith without god is like science without evidence: they both end up as Creationism.

but, science has no evidence of abio-genesis. it is all guess work. usually reffering to, we think.

[Jack_of_Blades]

but, science has no evidence of abio-genesis. it is all guess work. usually reffering to, we think.

Well, not quite. While abiogensis is not empirically proven, our current knowledge and scientific theories are very much supportive of it.

And will adapt and change as more evidence for this (or other origin theories) are produced.

Even still an absence of evidence is not evidence of a god. And science not being able to prove everything 100% does not equal science

can't prove anything.

I'm not even arguing that there is proof that there isnt a god. Just that the need to have proof for a god destroys the whole point of "believing" in him

in the first place.

Edited October 20, 2014 by Jack_of_Blades

[J. K.]

I'm not even arguing that there is proof that there isnt a god. Just that the need to have proof for a god destroys the whole point of "believing" in him

in the first place.

Not really. We have evidence in the form of our initial experience of His presence in our lives. Granted that it is subjective evidence, but it's real enough for us. Belief is not based on blind faith, but instead on the reality we have experienced.

[+DieChecker]

Not really. We have evidence in the form of our initial experience of His presence in our lives. Granted that it is subjective evidence, but it's real enough for us. Belief is not based on blind faith, but instead on the reality we have experienced.

I agree Faith is reinforced dramatically by shared experience.

[Jeanne dArc]

there is plenty of evidence that there is a god. but as long as your closed minded you will not see or accept the evidence.

If there is evidence, then show it. All "evidence" you have shown so far has been absurd: you have yet to present any valid evidence, which cannot be easily refuted. It is not I who am "closed minded". But you have not presented any viable evidence.

[Jeanne dArc]

as i said you have to be open to see it. newton did not discover gravity. he was the fdirst to be open minded enough to observe it. but gravity was there for a very long time before newton wrote his laws of motion. the evidence was there, but it was niether documented nor repeatable.

Haha, how absurd Newton did indeed discover gravity: in the sense that he was the first to understand it as a force. The observation that things fall obviously always existed: but it took Newton's formulas to explain why things fall, and he called that "gravity".

[Jeanne dArc]

but, science has no evidence of abio-genesis. it is all guess work. usually reffering to, we think.

There is a great deal of evidence for abiogenesis. Science doesn't operate based on "all guesswork". Where on earth did you get that idea?

[Jeanne dArc]

Not really. We have evidence in the form of our initial experience of His presence in our lives. Granted that it is subjective evidence, but it's real enough for us. Belief is not based on blind faith, but instead on the reality we have experienced.

The problem being that "subjective evidence" is highly susceptible to error and misperception.

[Alan McDougall]

If there is evidence, then show it. All "evidence" you have shown so far has been absurd: you have yet to present any valid evidence, which cannot be easily refuted. It is not I who am "closed minded". But you have not presented any viable evidence.

Absurd to you! I think your former Mormon faith, and their little god is what really put you against any concept of God.

[Jeanne dArc]

Absurd to you! I think your former Mormon faith, and their little god is what really put you against any concept of God.

I have never been a Mormon. I've never claimed that I was. I was raised a non-denominational fundamentalist Christian (with some Presbyterian leaning). I am against any concept of God, yes, because it is absurd to me. If a theist could give some reason why it isn't absurd, verifying their claims, then I would give the notion another shot: it's failed miserably up till now though, and I'm not holding my breath. You're more about assertions and loud ad hominems than any actual discussion or evidence.

If I can refute your "evidence" with absolute ease, that's a bit of a problem. If you cannot defend the veracity of your "evidence" from scrutiny, that is further problem: it is rendered untenable. You have failed on all counts, ceaselessly. I'm perfectly open to viable evidence, but you haven't given any: every shred of "evidence" you've dredged up has proved to be easily refutable at best. Sorry if you can't handle that.

Edited October 20, 2014 by Jeanne dArc

[Jack_of_Blades]

Not really. We have evidence in the form of our initial experience of His presence in our lives. Granted that it is subjective evidence, but it's real enough for us. Belief is not based on blind faith, but instead on the reality we have experienced.

But by it's very definition that's not evidence. Evidence isnt subjective. I have zero doubt that in your journey through life you have seen and/or experienced things that have resulted in your current belief system, just as everyone else has. But personal experience isn't evidence. If it was, we would have a unified theory on conjuring elves since a quarter of Icelanders believe they exist.

Absurd to you! I think your former Mormon faith, and their little god is what really put you against any concept of God.

It's absurd because it's not evidence. If someone would produce some evidence for me to read I would gladly take it in

and discuss what does and doesn't work about it. But no one has produced anything but beliefs and personal

experience. Also it worth while to point out that you're putting down Mormons. So not only are you saying "you're not correct"

you're saying "everyone except for my beliefs are incorrect".

Edited October 20, 2014 by Jack_of_Blades

[J. K.]

The problem being that "subjective evidence" is highly susceptible to error and misperception.

That sounds like a safe way of labeling something you haven't experienced yourself. Isn't it a bit unscientific to claim that something is not real simply because you haven't experienced it yourself? Doesn't new knowledge begin with "what if"

I have, over the last four decades, experienced the presence of God innumerable times in various ways. I am not alone in this experience. I have personally interacted with hundreds who say they have also experienced it. Tell me what it is that

we are misperceiving.

But by it's very definition that's not evidence. Evidence isnt subjective. I have zero doubt that in your journey through life you have seen and/or experienced things that have resulted in your current belief system, just as everyone else has. But personal experience isn't evidence. If it was, we would have a unified theory on conjuring elves since a quarter of Icelanders believe they exist.

I did say that it was subjective rather than objective. However, there is a real response to a real stimulus. I would imagine that Diechecker and I, having never met, could talk deeply about our common experiences. As I asked Jeanne dArc, what do you think that stimulus is?

[Jack_of_Blades]

That sounds like a safe way of labeling something you haven't experienced yourself. Isn't it a bit unscientific to claim that something is not real simply because you haven't experienced it yourself? Doesn't new knowledge begin with "what if"

Not quite. Knowledge does start with "what if" and then evidence, experiments (the scientific method) are applied

to test it. So a few of us are asking "What if god exists?" and now we are looking/asking for the evidence in this thread and

there isn't any.

I did say that it was subjective rather than objective. However, there is a real response to a real stimulus. I would imagine that Diechecker and I, having never met, could talk deeply about our common experiences. As I asked Jeanne dArc, what do you think that stimulus is?

The thing is: the stimuli doesn't have to be real for people to have very real responses to them. In the same way that other people have life altering events to religious

experiences, the same can happen by a novel, movie, or even fever dream that makes you rethink and see life in a new way. I don't believe a god doesn't exist. I just base my life in hard facts and evidence. Of which (for god) there isn't any. But that doesn't matter. God shouldn't need facts, if one exists it can do whatever the hell it wants. Trying to

ground a spiritual event in reality without evidence is impossible. It requires faith.

Edited October 20, 2014 by Jack_of_Blades

[J. K.]

Not quite. Knowledge does start with "what if" and then evidence, experiments (the scientific method) are applied

to test it. So a few of us are asking "What if god exists?" and now we are looking/asking for the evidence in this thread and

there isn't any.

Could you accept this question: What if God is a form of energy that we have not yet detected?

The thing is: the stimuli doesn't have to be real for people to have very real responses to them. In the same way that other people have life altering events to religious

experiences, the same can happen by a novel, movie, or even fever dream that makes you rethink and see life in a new way. I don't believe a god doesn't exist. I just base my life in hard facts and evidence. Of which (for god) there isn't any. But that doesn't matter. God shouldn't need facts, if one exists it can do whatever the hell it wants. Trying to

ground a spiritual event in reality without evidence is impossible. It requires faith.

I know that you don't think God is the stimulus; I am asking what you think it is. There is a real stimulus that people are responding to resulting in similar shared experiences. What do you think that stimulus is?

[Atuke]

The Bible says he is of human image. So he/she would look like a random human.

[Atuke]

.

Edited October 20, 2014 by bobb73

[Jack_of_Blades]

Could you accept this question: What if God is a form of energy that we have not yet detected?

Sure I can "accept" that question. But without a way to currently test it we have no way of knowing just like

Vanilla God.

I know that you don't think God is the stimulus; I am asking what you think it is. There is a real stimulus that people are responding to resulting in similar shared experiences. What do you think that stimulus is?

Human brains instinctively look for patterns and meaning. It's given us a massive evolutionary leg-up in the world. The stimuli can be anything. Coincidences, random one in a million chances, any event really. And the human mind structures it to fit a previously known belief system. Put enough monkeys with type-writers in a room...

I'd like to point out that no secluded tribe/village/culture has ever just spontaneously begun believing in the exact god a completely

separate society has.

The Bible says he is of human image. So he/she would look like a random human.

I say Reba McEntire.

The whole "God looks like us"-thing feels like the biggest example of human ego ever.

Edited October 20, 2014 by Jack_of_Blades

[J. K.]

Human brains instinctively look for patterns and meaning. It's given us a massive evolutionary leg-up in the world. The stimuli can be anything. Coincidences, random one in a million chances, any event really. And the human mind structures it to fit a previously known belief system. Put enough monkeys with type-writers in a room...

I'd like to point out that no secluded tribe/village/culture has ever just spontaneously begun believing in the exact god a completely

separate society has.

Having had no contact with such tribes, I wouldn't know. Besides, my reference group is Christians in the U.S.

I would have difficulty believing that random chance and coincidence would explain the shared experience that thousands of people are having. Keep in mind that this "stimulus" happens many times during a lifetime; it's not a one-off occurred.

[Jack_of_Blades]

Having had no contact with such tribes, I wouldn't know. Besides, my reference group is Christians in the U.S.

The point I was trying (but pretty un-clearly ) to make was that if there is a god why wouldn't EVERY culture around the world

have the same experience instead of them being regional? The whole planet should have had visions of the Christian god instead of

Kami's, Quetzalcoatl, and Nanook Master of Bears (unrelated: which sounds like the coolest god name ever)

I would have difficulty believing that random chance and coincidence would explain the shared experience that thousands of people are having. Keep in mind that this "stimulus" happens many times during a lifetime; it's not a one-off occurred.

All I can say is our minds have developed specifically to see meaning in things that don't have any. Take an intelligent creature looking for meaning in everything, add

the unreliable limits of the brain, and multiply it by just the statistical odds of anything happening. And I personally can completely believe it.

Though it has aroused my interest, what are your personal experiences that you feel are unable to be explained except by a higher power existing?

[Jeanne dArc]

That sounds like a safe way of labeling something you haven't experienced yourself. Isn't it a bit unscientific to claim that something is not real simply because you haven't experienced it yourself? Doesn't new knowledge begin with "what if"

I have, over the last four decades, experienced the presence of God innumerable times in various ways. I am not alone in this experience. I have personally interacted with hundreds who say they have also experienced it. Tell me what it is that

we are misperceiving.

Part of the problem is that yes, you and many others have experienced things you've interpreted as evidence of a god: but not everyone who experiences similar things has reached those same conclusions. I personally describe religious experiences as fundamentally either a bias of magical thinking (a trap it is very easy for humans to fall into) or wholly existing in the brain.

I did say that it was subjective rather than objective. However, there is a real response to a real stimulus. I would imagine that Diechecker and I, having never met, could talk deeply about our common experiences. As I asked Jeanne dArc, what do you think that stimulus is?

Presumably a number of stilumi: most solely within the brain and its biochemistry, and some misinterpretations of external events (perceived "answered prayers" for example).

[Jeanne dArc]

Could you accept this question: What if God is a form of energy that we have not yet detected?

Then believing in it remains quite unjustifiable until we do detect it.

[J. K.]

Part of the problem is that yes, you and many others have experienced things you've interpreted as evidence of a god: but not everyone who experiences similar things has reached those same conclusions. I personally describe religious experiences as fundamentally either a bias of magical thinking (a trap it is very easy for humans to fall into) or wholly existing in the brain.

Presumably a number of stilumi: most solely within the brain and its biochemistry, and some misinterpretations of external events (perceived "answered prayers" for example).

I can't speak to the idea of magical thinking, as I don't fully understand what you mean by that phrase in this context. The inner brain stimuli idea is okay; that seems to be the usual response to this type of question. My question there would be: what is the evolutionary advantage of perception of religious phenomena?

Then believing in it remains quite unjustifiable until we do detect it.

And therein lies part of the frustration. Any Christian worth his salt would tell you that we can detect the spiritual energy.

It makes me wonder: can you see past the limestone and water to appreciate the beauty of the cavern?

The point I was trying (but pretty un-clearly ) to make was that if there is a god why wouldn't EVERY culture around the world

have the same experience instead of them being regional? The whole planet should have had visions of the Christian god instead of

Kami's, Quetzalcoatl, and Nanook Master of Bears (unrelated: which sounds like the coolest god name ever)

There's an answer for that, but it would take this thread in a totally different direction. Besides, from our perspective, at one point in time everyone in the world knew about God, and subsequently most rejected Him.

All I can say is our minds have developed specifically to see meaning in things that don't have any. Take an intelligent creature looking for meaning in everything, add

the unreliable limits of the brain, and multiply it by just the statistical odds of anything happening. And I personally can completely believe it.

Though it has aroused my interest, what are your personal experiences that you feel are unable to be explained except by a higher power existing?

Okay, here it goes...I think I've told about this before. It remains strong in my memory because it was one of the first such experiences that I had after becoming a Christian. I was praying and meditating one evening, and I thought of my friend Jim who was experiencing some difficulty in his life. A scripture passage came into my mind; it was unrelated to what I was reading at that moment. I realized that the scripture might help him, so I prayed that God would reveal it to him. I saw Jim at church that weekend, and as we talked, we realized that God did give him that passage at about the time I was praying for him.

I could see that happening as coincidence one time. Maybe two, three or four times. But 10 times? 50 times? At some point it moves beyond coincidence, and some other influence must be considered.