How do you know GOD is there?

[LooseEnd]

I've been meeting missionaries from the Church of Latter Day saints for couple of weeks now.

Last time I went there, I asked them how do you know GOD is there? And for most of them it is just a feeling. When you pray(Also during other things) you feel this incredible feeling of peace and that is assumed to be coming from GOD. I thought, you guys are missionaries, that's the best you can give me??

Is that how you know GOD is there?

 

[Mister Emu]

He's spoken to me...

Though, the Lord's presence in prayer and Mass is undeniable to me as well... it is difficult to describe, but I would not just call it a sense of peace...

 

[LooseEnd]

But still it is some kind of a feeling right? Nothing beyond that?

 

[lemo]

The best word is realization. to realize it, to taste it..that is the truth.Discovering something, is only discovering, hinting, hoping it to be real...knowing what is tastes like, is the real..

 

[Daisy333]

One of the things that I love about Catholicism is that it integrates faith and reason. Yes, faith is important, but it is also very possible to reach the conclusion that God exists by pure reason as well.

St. Thomas Aquinas came up with 5 very rational proofs for God's existence (purely philosophical, not theological at all):

Proof #1: The Uncaused Cause
There must be a cause for every effect in the world. It is impossible that something comes from nothing. You can't get anything from no thing. You can't say that the world is just full of causes without concluding to an original cause. Therefore, to explain the effects we see today, we must conclude that there is an all-perfect being that contains its own cause of being. It is all-perfect because only a perfect being contains the cause of its own existence. We call God "God," because that is a revealed name. You can call Him, for now, whatever you want, even the Uncaused Cause.

Proof #2: The Unmoved Mover
We see motion in the world. Something in motion cannot begin moving without something moving it first. "God," as we call Him, is the Beginning Mover.

Proof #3: Proof of Necessity and Contingency
We see things today that have not always existed, and we call these "contingent beings." In order to explain the existence of contingent beings, we must conclude that a necessary being exists. A necessary being is an independent being that has always existed. You can't have a contingent being without a necessary being. We call this necessary being "God."

Proof #4: Proof from Perfection
We see beings that exist with different degrees of truth, beauty, and goodness. For example, in the category of beauty, we can all agree that Michelangelo's painting is more beautiful than a 2nd grader's drawing. (Although I have heard the argument that this is subjective, it really is objective, to a degree. Think about it. Who in the world would say that a garbage dump is more beautiful than a sunrise?) Therefore, if a person is to judge something that is more or less true, beautiful, or good, they must be presupposing an absolute standard of perfection by which we can judge imperfect things. If we say that Mother Teresa has more goodness than Hitler, we are presupposing a perfect standard. We call this perfect standard God.

5th Proof: Proof from Design
Something that possesses the qualities of design must have a designer. The more complex the design, the more complex the designer. (There is a 500,000 to 1 possibility that the human eye could operate.) Therefore, we must conclude the existence of an all-knowing designer Who designed the complexities of the universe. We call Him God.

I hope that helped! Thomas Aquinas was a genius! I sure couldn't have thought of that.

 

[Riverwolf]

God is Here, and There. ^_^ I've experienced It. (Just my opinion.)

 

[Wotan]

Aquinas was a anti-Semitic bigot and religious fanatic.

As for his "proofs"

Proof #1: The Uncaused Cause
Illogical. If everything must be cause THEN WHAT CAUSED god. If god did not have a cause then the universe need not have a cause.

Mover This is merely assigning a word to an unanswered question. I could call it the FSM.

Proof #3: Proof of Necessity and Contingency
We see things today that have not always existed, and we call these "contingent beings." In order to explain the existence of contingent beings, we must conclude that a necessary being exists.

WHY?

There is no middle term here, merely an unsupported assumption.

Proof #4: Proof from Perfection

No, does not follow. I can merely say that for me and most people A is more pleasing than B. There is NO objective test that can establish that comparison. Merely the sum of opinions.


5th Proof: Proof from Design

This is ID nonsense. There is no proof that ANYTHING in nature was designed. Was a snowflake? How about ripples in a pool? If you draw to an inside straight and get it was that hand designed?

Their is considerable evidence for the "BELIEF" in god.

None for any god - ever.

 

[Wotan]

He's spoken to me...

Though, the Lord's presence in prayer and Mass is undeniable to me as well... it is difficult to describe, but I would not just call it a sense of peace...

Really?

Did he offer a prediction on the Preakness? How about the election of 2012. He would know. How about a good stock tip? You ever get one of those?

EXACTLY what DID he say? Inquiring minds want to know.

 

[LooseEnd]

The best word is realization. to realize it, to taste it..that is the truth.Discovering something, is only discovering, hinting, hoping it to be real...knowing what is tastes like, is the real..

So have you realized GOD is there? Can you describe how you realized it?

 

[LooseEnd]

LooseEnd,
First allow me to give you a little warning. If you want to be pleasing to the Almighty God you will only attend religious meetings of a religion that teaches truth, as spoken in the Holy Bible.

Thanks, but my meeting with the missionaries is not done in order to please GOD, I go there to understand why they believe what they believe.

I do not think I need to answer the rest of your post. Taking things from a book to prove something is not really impressive.

 

[LooseEnd]

What makes your religion any more truthful than any other,

This is another question that I asked them BTW.

 

[LooseEnd]

God is Here, and There. ^_^ I've experienced It. (Just my opinion.)

Would you care to explain, how you came to the conclusion that what you experienced is GOD?

 

[Dunemeister]

When it comes to truth, "feeling" is all that you CAN have. Why do you believe 2+2=4? Well, you get what you might call a feeling of rightness about it that seems well nigh unshakable. It just feels right in a way considering the proposition that 2+2=5 does not. That latter proposition just seems wrong, rejectable.

Similarly with belief in God. Just as we have access to arithmetic trurths directly, and so knowing them is a matter of feeling, so we have access to theological truths and know THEM by feeling.

 

[LooseEnd]

When it comes to truth, "feeling" is all that you CAN have. Why do you believe 2+2=4? Well, you get what you might call a feeling of rightness about it that seems well nigh unshakable. It just feels right in a way considering the proposition that 2+2=5 does not. That latter proposition just seems wrong, rejectable.

Similarly with belief in God. Just as we have access to arithmetic trurths directly, and so knowing them is a matter of feeling, so we have access to theological truths and know THEM by feeling.

Well, I can't agree with you here. I see truth as something beyond a 'feeling'. For an example, we know white light consists of 7 colors, to explore this truth I try to use a glass prism and direct the sunlight to a wall. And I can see 7 colors and it is not just a 'feeling' about that truth. I can see it with my own eyes.

I do not get a feeling of rightness about 2+2=4. I try to explore whether the mathematical representation can be justified by reasonable logic. The number system is just a logical framework to explain things right? So i try to see whether the framework is correct. I take 2 fish put them in a tank, take another 2 put them in the same tank, I count them and I get 4, not 5. So I know the system is correct. It is not a feeling of rightness for me.

 

[Mister Emu]

Inquiring minds want to know.

It seems less like you want to know, as opposed to ridicule...

 

[zenzero]

Friend LooseEnd,

How do you know GOD is there?

;
It is evident you are visiting the church to tie up the loose ends.
Give you full marks for asking the right question.
How do one knows there is God?
Before you if there is God we should know what is God?
If you would response about your understanding of what God is, shall walk the distance together!

Love & rgds

 

[Wotan]

It seems less like you want to know, as opposed to ridicule...

So you don't know what your god said? Or don't want to share? Or perhaps forgot?

YOU made the claim that your god talks to you. Seems only logical to ask what it said.

After all the master of the universe took time out of his (supposedly) busy day to chat with YOU. And many of the folks who claim a similar experience were/are only TOO willing to share the substance of their conversations.

Why so reticent about yours?

 

[Dunemeister]

Well, I can't agree with you here. I see truth as something beyond a 'feeling'. For an example, we know white light consists of 7 colors, to explore this truth I try to use a glass prism and direct the sunlight to a wall. And I can see 7 colors and it is not just a 'feeling' about that truth. I can see it with my own eyes.

Scientific truths (by this I mean theories and hypotheses) are different because we don't learn them directly. But consider the truth of "when I looked through that prism a moment ago, I saw light come out one side of it broken into several colour bands, about seven of them if I recall." In that case, your memory "seems" right, and again, that feeling, particularly if the memory is recent and vivid, will be particularly strong. How do you know you remember correctly? That is, how do you KNOW you saw light refract that way? You just DO. Questioning it too closely seems obtuse, despite the fact that it's logically possible you're not remembering the event correctly, and most of us would say you that you know what you saw.

That feeling of rightness is distinctly different from, say, the feeling you get when you dream that white light refracts into seven colours. And that feeling, when strong enough (and all your faculties are functioning properly), indicates knowledge.

I do not get a feeling of rightness about 2+2=4. I try to explore whether the mathematical representation can be justified by reasonable logic. The number system is just a logical framework to explain things right? So i try to see whether the framework is correct. I take 2 fish put them in a tank, take another 2 put them in the same tank, I count them and I get 4, not 5. So I know the system is correct. It is not a feeling of rightness for me.

I think you're misdescribing the feeling in order to win an argument. 2+2=4 cannot be demonstrated by counting. In fact, it simply cannot be proved at all, only stipulated. Check with any mathematician. The concept "number" is undefined, and the operator of addition is a mere stipulation about how you can relate these undefined entities/values/quantities (whatever you want to call them).

But that point aside, simply consider the proposition 2+2=4. It just seems/feels right. Compare the feeling with trying to seriously consider 2+2=5. That latter proposition seems/feels wrong, without any sort of experimentation (potential or actual, although impossible in the nature of the case). The difference in feeling, not any experiment with fishes, goats, or galaxies, is how you know one is true and the other not (again, assuming you're sane and all the relevant faculties are functioning properly).

 

[Tristesse]

I think you're misdescribing the feeling in order to win an argument. 2+2=4 cannot be demonstrated by counting. In fact, it simply cannot be proved at all, only stipulated. Check with any mathematician. The concept "number" is undefined, and the operator of addition is a mere stipulation about how you can relate these undefined entities/values/quantities (whatever you want to call them).

But that point aside, simply consider the proposition 2+2=4. It just seems/feels right. Compare the feeling with trying to seriously consider 2+2=5. That latter proposition seems/feels wrong, without any sort of experimentation (potential or actual, although impossible in the nature of the case). The difference in feeling, not any experiment with fishes, goats, or galaxies, is how you know one is true and the other not (again, assuming you're sane and all the relevant faculties are functioning properly).

No, 2+2=4 because of the numeric system. The fact that it feels more comfortable for you is irrelevant. If you were raised to learn that 2+2=5 than that equation would feel most comfortable for you. But actually 2+2=4 can be mathematically proven. For example, if you take 2 items of something, add one item, you now have three, and add one more item, now you have four. The number systems are just labels that we put on numeric values. I wouldn't get too hung up on the labels.

 

[Thief]

You don't need scripture of any kind to answer this.
Look in the mirror.

Your form has five senses. Each is different, but yields it's portion of perception to your mind.
You have two eyes to view your surroundings, two feet to change those surroundings and two hands to manipulate as you see fit.
There is no mystery to life.
All of this is a learning experience.

Why?

Picture yourself as God....yes you can.
Look in the 'mirror'.
Your reflection is perfect....but there is no conversation.
Each question you would ask, would have the perfect answer.

You are alone.

There is the universe...the creation...and though it responds to your touch...
it does not really respond.

Man is that part of creation that is unique.
Your linear existence insures it.
Your lack of knowing all things...creates 'the' question.

Would you like to question God?
Go ahead.
It's what He has been waiting for.