Will we instantly know God exists when we die?

[Boba]

The problem is that if you take that definition, you can never conclude that there's evidence for God -- ever, because the default assumption, in your scenario, is "Well, I don't know how that happened, but there must be a scientific explanation for it, so that's not evidence for God."

There aren't a lot of phenomenon that science can't explain, but for those phenomenon, the supernatural can't be ruled out.

If you want a good example of just how meager our understanding of the universe is, Google "quantum nonlocality".

There are tons of things we don't know or can't explain. The entire area of Quantum physics is mostly based on theory. What is Gravity? What is Magnitism? Why do we still have any disease? Do Black holes really exist? Is there a God? Because there is no "Test" for something, doesn't mean it doesn't exist? There is nothing short of God himself sitting down to a spaghetti dinner with Frank that would convince him of his existence.

[24HourNut]

I don't care who wrote or edited what embellished text or not - no one knows what happens when you die and everyone who pretends to know or thinks they have an idea due to their "faith" is delusional at best.

I take it u don't believe in the bible or God? oh well that's your opinion.

I believe it's possible there is a God but there isn't a shred of evidence for it.

That's actually an interesting question, that I struggle with. What constitutes "evidence". My girlfriend once said to me (a bit accusingly) that the only thing I'd ever accept is a "CSI God", that left tangible, empirical, irrefutable evidence. As I said then, that's not the kind of evidence I would look for. I think if you ever find "evidence" of God that you can measure scientifically, whatever you've found isn't God. Rather, what I would accept is a phenomenon that can't be explained by science and that has to come from a supernatural realm.

The way I think of it is this: If my brother gets up and walks, that's not a miracle. If I get up and walk, now that's, a miracle!

We all know real evidence for something when we come across it. It's something that isn't just left to the interpretation of other people, emotions, subjective feelings, etc. You know, the minimum basics for something being valid scientific evidence of some sort.

There isn't a single shred of real evidence for a God. Is there more evidence for multiple Gods, like the ancients preferred? Is there more evidence for Zeus and Poseidon, or the God of Abraham? It's all ridiculous because the only evidence that exists is pathetic at best since it is comprised of things like "I can just feel it" or "All of this, the whole planet, just for us?" or even "it's the only explanation for the Universe my little brain can come up at this time."

The problem is that if you take that definition, you can never conclude that there's evidence for God -- ever, because the default assumption, in your scenario, is "Well, I don't know how that happened, but there must be a scientific explanation for it, so that's not evidence for God."

There aren't a lot of phenomenon that science can't explain, but for those phenomenon, the supernatural can't be ruled out.

If you want a good example of just how meager our understanding of the universe is, Google "quantum nonlocality".

There's nothing in what I said that doesn't leave room for evidence of one or more Gods to come forth. If they or it want to present clear evidence of their existence they or it can do it instead of these text games.

[24HourNut]

The problem is that if you take that definition, you can never conclude that there's evidence for God -- ever, because the default assumption, in your scenario, is "Well, I don't know how that happened, but there must be a scientific explanation for it, so that's not evidence for God."

There aren't a lot of phenomenon that science can't explain, but for those phenomenon, the supernatural can't be ruled out.

If you want a good example of just how meager our understanding of the universe is, Google "quantum nonlocality".

There are tons of things we don't know or can't explain. The entire area of Quantum physics is mostly based on theory. What is Gravity? What is Magnitism? Why do we still have any disease? Do Black holes really exist? Is there a God? Because there is no "Test" for something, doesn't mean it doesn't exist? There is nothing short of God himself sitting down to a spaghetti dinner with Frank that would convince him of his existence.

I didn't say God doesn't exist or that it isn't possible. I said there isn't a shred of read evidence for one or more God's existence.

[Brian]

I don't care who wrote or edited what embellished text or not - no one knows what happens when you die and everyone who pretends to know or thinks they have an idea due to their "faith" is delusional at best.

I take it u don't believe in the bible or God? oh well that's your opinion.

I believe it's possible there is a God but there isn't a shred of evidence for it.

That's actually an interesting question, that I struggle with. What constitutes "evidence". My girlfriend once said to me (a bit accusingly) that the only thing I'd ever accept is a "CSI God", that left tangible, empirical, irrefutable evidence. As I said then, that's not the kind of evidence I would look for. I think if you ever find "evidence" of God that you can measure scientifically, whatever you've found isn't God. Rather, what I would accept is a phenomenon that can't be explained by science and that has to come from a supernatural realm.

The way I think of it is this: If my brother gets up and walks, that's not a miracle. If I get up and walk, now that's, a miracle!

We all know real evidence for something when we come across it. It's something that isn't just left to the interpretation of other people, emotions, subjective feelings, etc. You know, the minimum basics for something being valid scientific evidence of some sort.

There isn't a single shred of real evidence for a God. Is there more evidence for multiple Gods, like the ancients preferred? Is there more evidence for Zeus and Poseidon, or the God of Abraham? It's all ridiculous because the only evidence that exists is pathetic at best since it is comprised of things like "I can just feel it" or "All of this, the whole planet, just for us?" or even "it's the only explanation for the Universe my little brain can come up at this time."

The problem is that if you take that definition, you can never conclude that there's evidence for God -- ever, because the default assumption, in your scenario, is "Well, I don't know how that happened, but there must be a scientific explanation for it, so that's not evidence for God."

There aren't a lot of phenomenon that science can't explain, but for those phenomenon, the supernatural can't be ruled out.

If you want a good example of just how meager our understanding of the universe is, Google "quantum nonlocality".

There's nothing in what I said that doesn't leave room for evidence of one or more Gods to come forth. If they or it want to present clear evidence of their existence they or it can do it instead of these text games.

The point is, the minute you have evidence for it (eimpirically), it can't be God. That's why what you've said doesn't leave room for God.

[theia]

"The point is, the minute you have evidence for it (eimpirically), it can't be God. That's why what you've said doesn't leave room for God."

I like that, Brian...beyond all understanding etc.

Yet it leaves me wondering why we continue to use symbols for God...actually I may have just answered that myself...perhaps it's so we can symbolically feel a part of that unknowable or intangible?

I'm rambling somewhat...I can feel what I want to say but cant express it.

[Brian]

"The point is, the minute you have evidence for it (eimpirically), it can't be God. That's why what you've said doesn't leave room for God."

I like that, Brian...beyond all understanding etc.

Yet it leaves me wondering why we continue to use symbols for God...actually I may have just answered that myself...perhaps it's so we can symbolically feel a part of that unknowable or intangible?

I'm rambling somewhat...I can feel what I want to say but cant express it.

I've heard it said (and I'm paraphrasing here), "If you can understand it, it's not God."

To me, that means that if your God is small enough that you can understand it, it can't possibly be God.

Please note: This is not an endorsement of blind, unthinking faith. The reason I don't believe in the Christian god is because that god is logically self-contradictory. There are holes in the trinity concept you could easily roll Jupiter through (the planet...not the Roman god).

[24HourNut]

I don't care who wrote or edited what embellished text or not - no one knows what happens when you die and everyone who pretends to know or thinks they have an idea due to their "faith" is delusional at best.

I take it u don't believe in the bible or God? oh well that's your opinion.

I believe it's possible there is a God but there isn't a shred of evidence for it.

That's actually an interesting question, that I struggle with. What constitutes "evidence". My girlfriend once said to me (a bit accusingly) that the only thing I'd ever accept is a "CSI God", that left tangible, empirical, irrefutable evidence. As I said then, that's not the kind of evidence I would look for. I think if you ever find "evidence" of God that you can measure scientifically, whatever you've found isn't God. Rather, what I would accept is a phenomenon that can't be explained by science and that has to come from a supernatural realm.

The way I think of it is this: If my brother gets up and walks, that's not a miracle. If I get up and walk, now that's, a miracle!

We all know real evidence for something when we come across it. It's something that isn't just left to the interpretation of other people, emotions, subjective feelings, etc. You know, the minimum basics for something being valid scientific evidence of some sort.

There isn't a single shred of real evidence for a God. Is there more evidence for multiple Gods, like the ancients preferred? Is there more evidence for Zeus and Poseidon, or the God of Abraham? It's all ridiculous because the only evidence that exists is pathetic at best since it is comprised of things like "I can just feel it" or "All of this, the whole planet, just for us?" or even "it's the only explanation for the Universe my little brain can come up at this time."

The problem is that if you take that definition, you can never conclude that there's evidence for God -- ever, because the default assumption, in your scenario, is "Well, I don't know how that happened, but there must be a scientific explanation for it, so that's not evidence for God."

There aren't a lot of phenomenon that science can't explain, but for those phenomenon, the supernatural can't be ruled out.

If you want a good example of just how meager our understanding of the universe is, Google "quantum nonlocality".

There's nothing in what I said that doesn't leave room for evidence of one or more Gods to come forth. If they or it want to present clear evidence of their existence they or it can do it instead of these text games.

The point is, the minute you have evidence for it (eimpirically), it can't be God. That's why what you've said doesn't leave room for God.

The minute you have evidence for it you have evidence for it. Yes, you can have evidence for it. Just because I don't deem the kind of claims I've seen as evidence doesn't mean valid real convincing evidence can not be produced.

[24HourNut]

"The point is, the minute you have evidence for it (eimpirically), it can't be God. That's why what you've said doesn't leave room for God."

I like that, Brian...beyond all understanding etc.

Yet it leaves me wondering why we continue to use symbols for God...actually I may have just answered that myself...perhaps it's so we can symbolically feel a part of that unknowable or intangible?

I'm rambling somewhat...I can feel what I want to say but cant express it.

I've heard it said (and I'm paraphrasing here), "If you can understand it, it's not God."

To me, that means that if your God is small enough that you can understand it, it can't possibly be God.

Please note: This is not an endorsement of blind, unthinking faith. The reason I don't believe in the Christian god is because that god is logically self-contradictory. There are holes in the trinity concept you could easily roll Jupiter through (the planet...not the Roman god).

A God that can do anything can make convincing evidence be known and fully understood by all clearly, if that God wanted to. A God can make you understand anything. If a God wanted to produce evidence we could all understand and accept it would be done in an instant. Apparently, at least one God is into mystery games. And don't get me started on the notion of a jealous thought police dictator creating people as sick sinners and then insisting they worship you and get well or will be punished forever after death. That's beyond a game. That's an immoral absurdity.

[Brian]

The point is, the minute you have evidence for it (eimpirically), it can't be God. That's why what you've said doesn't leave room for God.

The minute you have evidence for it you have evidence for it. Yes, you can have evidence for it. Just because I don't deem the kind of claims I've seen as evidence doesn't mean valid real convincing evidence can not be produced.

Alright, I'll bite. What possible empirical evidence would both a) be evidence for God, and b) still be supernatural? Measuring a phenomenon presupposes you know what the mechanism is. If you can measure it, that makes it a natural phenomenon, not a supernatural phenomenon.

The very best you'd ever be able to do is to observe a phenomenon for which you don't have a definite explanation, but could substitute any number of natural explanations for.

An omnipotent god could force everyone to accept a supernatural explanation to a phenomenon, I suppose. That's certainly not a kind of god I'm hoping to see, though.

[24HourNut]

The point is, the minute you have evidence for it (eimpirically), it can't be God. That's why what you've said doesn't leave room for God.

The minute you have evidence for it you have evidence for it. Yes, you can have evidence for it. Just because I don't deem the kind of claims I've seen as evidence doesn't mean valid real convincing evidence can not be produced.

Alright, I'll bite. What possible empirical evidence would both a) be evidence for God, and b) still be supernatural? Measuring a phenomenon presupposes you know what the mechanism is. If you can measure it, that makes it a natural phenomenon, not a supernatural phenomenon.

The very best you'd ever be able to do is to observe a phenomenon for which you don't have a definite explanation, but could substitute any number of natural explanations for.

An omnipotent god could force everyone to accept a supernatural explanation to a phenomenon, I suppose. That's certainly not a kind of god I'm hoping to see, though.

Brian, if God suddenly appeared to each of us and answered us, answered our prayers, had conversations, did and showed us supernatural activities we would all be convinced instead of saying there is no evidence for God or supernatural activity. Furthermore, I don't even have to come up with something - God could just will it. God could make it so that we all could have private conversations. We would at least be faced with the idea that either everyone is on drugs or mental, or having prayers really answered. God could just make us have a conversational, supernatural relationship, awareness, and set of abilities that we can comfortably deem supernatural or divine in nature. God could make time stop, everyone stop, everything stop, and talk with you and have you see your life in a way that is truly beyond the natural world ... right now we have archaic slavery condoning man-made man-edited and time-altered books that have to be translated. Give me a break.

Like I said, if desired, we could be with God in a way that would not have us just being what all the evidence shows us to be - a sophisticated primate in one of the galaxies that will come and go like the others, on a jungle of a suffering planet that supports life on some of its surface some of the time with most species extinct with no supernatural or clear evidence of God at all. That doesn't sound like something we should assume is a divine plan to me.

Apparently, God wanted to really make it look like we evolved and wanted us to be confused and conflicted in general. Right.