Posted by Carlos on March 04, 1999 at 13:19:42:
In Reply to: Proving the unprovable posted by Heisenberg on March 04, 1999 at 01:36:12:
Good to see you back, Herr Heisenberg - it's been a long time.
Heisenberg said:
Fortunately for Carlos' sake, he's right on this point; by the rules of science or jurisprudence, the burden of proof would be on us, "the believers." I say "fortunately" because I think it is a truism that "you can't prove a negative," so he'd be hard pressed to prove that there is no God. It truly is the ultimate null hypothesis, isn't it? "God does not exist." But on the other hand, could we, believers, PROVE that there is a God?
No, but He certainly could - God could make himself known directly to humanity, without the hocus-pocus of prayer or the "spirit", or the necessity of an intermediary such as a guy with a pointy hat in Rome or a nice old man in SLC. I don't understand why an omniscient, omnipresent being would choose the paradigm of religion to relate to humanity - it just seems silly. Why require "faith"? Here are some reasons why one former Christian minister "lost faith in faith".
Personally, I don't think it is possible to prove that God exists with the tools that we have now. But at the same time I don't think it is necessary. I know it may sound trite to the former believers, but part of the purpose in life is to exercise faith in God even though we have no proof, "for ye receive no witness until after the trial of your faith."
Why? Why don't we receive a witness until after a "trial of faith"? Because it says so in an old book written by men? Do you trust in the arm of the flesh?
Is a "trial of faith" contemplated in Moroni 3:4-5? If you receive an "answer" how do you know its source? What about those who follow the prescription, and receive the "answer" that it's not of God? In my case, I concluded that all feelings of the "spirit" were endogenous when I was able to reproduce them by creating the appropriate atmosphere or frame of mind.
People's religious preference is overwhelmingly an accident of birth. I assume, but do not know, that you were born into the Mormon faith. I ask you a question that I asked myself many years ago: if you had not been born Mormon, do you think you would become one? For me, the answer was no, although I didn't become a "former believer" easily. I once believed, and rejected it - and that is what believers find difficult to grasp.
I think there are many evidences of God; for me, the most persuasive is that the evolution of ever more sophisticated and intelligent life forms seems to run counter to the second law of thermodynamics. Why is there more "order" when in fact, without external influence, there should be more chaos. But is that hard "proof?" No, just an intuitive feeling on my part.
Xavier already addressed the issue of the second law and provided the link to the Talk Origins article. Suffice it to say that evolution does not violate the second law despite the protestations of the creationist set.
If you'll pardon a rather poor analogy: Can you prove that love exists? You can only show the effects of love, which could readily be attributed to other emotions. And yet, we all "know" what love is, because we have felt its influence. You can choose to believe in love or not; personally, I choose to believe. I know that many would argue that my "feelings" are less valid than those concepts I can grasp by my powers of reason and logic. But I beg to differ. Is my grasp of calculus more valid than the feelings I have when I hold my wife or children in my arms? I can prove the limit theorem, but I cannot "prove" that I love my wife or my children. But is my knowledge or conviction of that love less than my conviction that Messrs. Newton and Leibnitz were right? I think not.
Yes, we all feel love and we think (hope) that what we feel is in fact common to the rest of humanity, although we can never know if what I name "love" is the same set of feelings and physical responses that you label "love". You know and recognize that "love" is internal to you - what makes you believe that the emotion/feelings you name "spirit" is any different?
I congratulate you on your memory of calculus - I would be hard pressed to do more than simple differentials and integrals after all these years. :)
I can't prove there is a God, but I know that He exists because I feel His influence. Call me sentimental, "hokey," or naive if you wish.
If a belief in God makes you happy, so be it (although my observation is that the most unhappy people I know seem to be the most entrenched Mormons). I am not on a mission to "de-convert" anyone from any particular religious philosophy. However, those of religious inclinations seem intent on "saving" me. :)