Is there a GOD??

[CTR4life]

Hello,

My husband decided that there is not prove that shows that God exist, he doesn't break any commanment but does not believe in God anymore and that has confuse me at times making me doubt of God existense as well.

I feel like my marriage is soulless

Please share with me your experience about why do you believe there is a God please.

[selek]

Hello,

My husband decided that there is not prove that shows that God exist, he doesn't break any commanment but does not believe in God anymore and that has confuse me at times making me doubt of God existense as well.

I feel like my marriage is soulless

Please share with me your experience about why do you believe there is a God please.

There is a God.

He is your Heavenly Father, and he loves you deeply, perfectly, and eternally.

I know this because- despite every reason not to- he even loves me.

[Guest gopecon]

I don't have enough faith to be an atheist.

To believe that we are all here by chance, and that we evolved upward from the primordial soup without the aid of a divine creator takes more faith than it takes for me see the wonders of His creations and see His hands throughout the world.

I've also had personal experiences that have helped me to know of God's love for me and concern for me in my life. I know that He is equally concerned about and aware of you in your life.

[ZionsRodeVos]

God is real.

I don't fully understand why He does many things the way He does, but He has answered enough of my prayers in ways I do understand to leave no doubt in my mind that He is there and listening.

[Anddenex]

Yes, there is a God, and he is our Heavenly Father and has provided for us a Savior, Jesus Christ, that we all might return. Why do I know?

When I pray...he has answered.

When I read his scriptures, I recognize the fruit is good, it swells my heart, and I am a better man as a result of it.

He has given us his priesthood... and the miracles the Lord said would follow those that believe do happen.

The mountains, the hills, this earth, the universe did not happen through the mechanics of physics solely. There is absolutely no proof that inorganic material evolves into organic breathing, living, multiplying organisms.

I have heard the voice of the Lord speak to my mind and heart.

I know, because I have witnessed the Lord answer my own children's prayers, one of which has already had experiences I am still hoping for.

[Bini]

Yes.

I know this because of how He has touched me in my life. There are some dark and hopeless moments in my past, and without my Saviour, I doubt that I would be where I am today. Not only does He continue to change my heart but I have seen Him change the hearts of those around me - some pretty darn stubborn ones, too! I don't believe these things just happened. The Lord is always here with us. If we open the door to Him, even just a little, His spirit will touch us. It's that initial first step of reaching a point of humility, when we allow ourselves to feel His presence and listen to His words.

[Traveler]

Hello,

My husband decided that there is not prove that shows that God exist, he doesn't break any commanment but does not believe in God anymore and that has confuse me at times making me doubt of God existense as well.

I feel like my marriage is soulless

Please share with me your experience about why do you believe there is a God please.

As a scientist that believes in evolution there is a G-d – likely multiple G-ds. If one believes in evolution then by the logic of evolution there must be a G-d. Allow me to explain.

If the universe came about by the process of evolution then there are a few things that we much understand and accept as true. First we must understand that whatever is possible regardless of whatever probability – can happen through evolution. We know that since the universe exist that it must be possible despite the extreme mathematical improbability. If we assume that the universe was created on the “chance” of possibility – we must also assume that whatever is possible can and will occur.

Next if we believe in evolution we believe then whatever life or living being is possible (regardless of probability) we can believe that it either currently exist or by evolution will eventually exist.

Now consider the principle that whatever can exist can be made to exist. This is simple to understand – because whatever the parameters and principles that caused the universe to exist that by duplicating those exact parameters – we will duplicate the events through which our universe was created. If over so many billions of years man can evolve then we know that if all the principles by which man came into being were duplicated – man could be made to be.

If evolution is possible then it is possible for a being to evolve that is more intelligent than man and through that intelligence able to contribute and be a process of evolution. If by intelligence, evolution can be affected, then it must be possible over time for a being to evolve capable of intelligently duplicating the parameters by which the universe was created. This means that if G-d did not initially create the universe in which evolution takes place that it is inevitable that a G-d – a being of sufficient intelligence to create the universe will by the very theory of evolution eventually evolve and exist.

Thus it is; that the only reasonable reason to believe or think that G-d does not exist is to have absolute proof that without question proves not only that G-d does not exist but that it is impossible that such a being, capable of creation, could ever exist – but that is contrary to the basic assumption and preponderance of evidence that evolution is a viable possibility in our universe.

Thus it does not matter if you believe there is a G-d that created our universe if we are to argue any other viable possibility for the existence of our universe – we still end up with a possibility that a G-d will eventually exist. Both ways – there must be a G-d because there is no other possible result other than to conclude there is a G-d.

Your husband’s logic therefore is severely naive and flawed.

The Traveler

[Irishcolleen]

Have him read The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel. Stobel was an atheist an a journalist. When his wife coverted to Christianity he decided to research and write a book that would show there was no basis for a belief in God. As he did the research he found God and became a Christian.

I don't believe there is anything in the book that a Mormon would object to.

[MarginOfError]

I'm with your husband. I don't believe anyone can have definitive proof of the existence of God except by seeing him. But one person seeing God doesn't constitute irrefutable proof--it is only proof to that individual. It's kind of a stick point.

But, while I don't believe there is objective, reproducible proof for the existence of God, I believe He exists anyway. I won't go into the reasons why, but if you'd like to explore more how I approach my faith in God, I wrote it out not too long ago here.

Uncommon Dissent: A Logical Construction of Faith, Part 1: Axioms of Faith

[Guest gopecon]

IC - I've read Strobel's work, and it is very good. We might not agree with every conclusion, but it is a very interesting read for a believer.

[Anddenex]

I'm with your husband. I don't believe anyone can have definitive proof of the existence of God except by seeing him. But one person seeing God doesn't constitute irrefutable proof--it is only proof to that individual. It's kind of a stick point.

But, while I don't believe there is objective, reproducible proof for the existence of God, I believe He exists anyway. I won't go into the reasons why, but if you'd like to explore more how I approach my faith in God, I wrote it out not too long ago here.

Uncommon Dissent: A Logical Construction of Faith, Part 1: Axioms of Faith

Wow, MoE, you lived in Cleveland Ohio in 2005, you might know my sister and her husband. He is attending, finishing up, a M.D. in oral surgery at Case Western.

Do you also know Wingnut?

EDIT: Wait I am believing now you know Wingnut very well.

[Traveler]

I'm with your husband. I don't believe anyone can have definitive proof of the existence of God except by seeing him. But one person seeing God doesn't constitute irrefutable proof--it is only proof to that individual. It's kind of a stick point.

But, while I don't believe there is objective, reproducible proof for the existence of God, I believe He exists anyway. I won't go into the reasons why, but if you'd like to explore more how I approach my faith in God, I wrote it out not too long ago here.

Uncommon Dissent: A Logical Construction of Faith, Part 1: Axioms of Faith

Just a note - there are many things in science considered to exist that no one has ever seen. It is generally accepted that there are elements, as well as sub atomic particles that exist. All this despite the fact that such thing have never been seen and only theorized to exist with no more evidence than the possibility of a G-d.

However, it has been shown that many of the theories concerning G-d have been demonstrated to be unnecessary in order for there to be a universe created in the way many believers in G-d insist was the case. For example man's current understanding of Physics will account for all that we are able to observe in our universe - Steven Hawkins presents this in a very straight forward and logical manner. As far as we know from recorded history this knowledge has never been available to man before.

What troubles me is that science continues to hone our understandings so that we can investigate the universe around us and consistently predict future behavior of the universe. Many in religion have refused to learn and apply these principles because they contradict the uninspired evolved perceptions of G-d that they believe. Since many religionist reject almost all that is being discovered and as such have fallen behind in understanding and ability to predict future behaviors of the universe with any more accuracy than was possible several thousands of years ago. As a result religion has lost significant creditability in the opposition to science. I have always asked the question - If a religion cannot interpret and understand the objective evidence given directly by studying the empirical universe - how can they be trusted to to properly interpret and understand the subjective spiritual things?

The Traveler

[Anddenex]

If a religion cannot interpret and understand the objective evidence given directly by studying the empirical universe - how can they be trusted to to properly interpret and understand the subjective spiritual things?

The Traveler

Ask Joseph Smith and other prophets who had no understanding of the empirical sciences and objective evidence you speak of.

Ask Joseph F. Smith or Joseph Fielding Smith who highly disagreed with the theory of evolution, and yet they were the chosen leader by God in spiritual things. Are you suggesting they are not to be trusted in spiritual things? It appears from your question, the implied question would be, should we remove section 138 in the Doctrine and Covenants because Joseph F. Smith disagreed and he didn't accept or believe in the objective evidence of the theory of evolution, which he and the First Presidency announced to the whole church, and which was republished by the Church in 2002?

Spiritual things are delivered by God, and a young boy [young woman] of 8, if close enough to the spirit will be much more spiritually in tuned than Michio -- a person who is easily representative of "ever learning but never coming to the knowledge of the truth."

Edited February 19, 2013 by Anddenex

[Backroads]

Whenever I have any sort of faith crisis, I go back to the basic question of this thread's title. I don't know how I come to realize it, but yes, I always wind up with the conclusion that God does exist.

[prisonchaplain]

Have him read The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel. Stobel was an atheist an a journalist. When his wife coverted to Christianity he decided to research and write a book that would show there was no basis for a belief in God. As he did the research he found God and became a Christian.

I don't believe there is anything in the book that a Mormon would object to.

For those not wanting to read the book, there's a documentary-movie version...I think Netflix has it streaming.

[prisonchaplain]

If you want to believe in God look at people. My three daughters all have the same mother and father--are growing up in the household--go to the same schools, and yet could not be more different. They are all beautiful (thanks to mom!), intelligent and good-hearted. Their personalities are so different. I look at them and know there must be a God. I look at my wife and think how God so generously blinded her, just so I could know love...yeah there must be a God.

[Dravin]

If you want to believe in God look at people. My three daughters all have the same mother and father--are growing up in the household--go to the same schools, and yet could not be more different. They are all beautiful (thanks to mom!), intelligent and good-hearted. Their personalities are so different. I look at them and know there must be a God. I look at my wife and think how God so generously blinded her, just so I could know love...yeah there must be a God.

With a little likening it all makes sense!

2 And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this woman, or her parents, that she was born blind?

3 Jesus answered, Neither hath this woman sinned, nor her parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in her.

[MarginOfError]

Wow, MoE, you lived in Cleveland Ohio in 2005, you might know my sister and her husband. He is attending, finishing up, a M.D. in oral surgery at Case Western.

I might know some people that fit that description.

Do you also know Wingnut?

EDIT: Wait I am believing now you know Wingnut very well.

Not all that well. I doubt my wife would look kindly on me meeting women from the Internet.

[MarginOfError]

Just a note - there are many things in science considered to exist that no one has ever seen. It is generally accepted that there are elements, as well as sub atomic particles that exist. All this despite the fact that such thing have never been seen and only theorized to exist with no more evidence than the possibility of a G-d

these theories are typically based on objective observation and testing of hypotheses. They are built on a reproducible body of evidence. I am unpersuaded that the same kind of evidence for God's existence can be developed because the way people experience the presence and existence of God is variable and subjective.

When I say that my belief in God is axiomatic, it is really the same as assuming the commutative property of addition--it fits my experience, it feels right, and I can't imagine a counter example.

But perhaps that's the difference between a physicist and a mathematician.

[Anddenex]

I might know some people that fit that description.

Not all that well. I doubt my wife would look kindly on me meeting women from the Internet.

Well, good to know.

[MarginOfError]

Ask Joseph Smith and other prophets who had no understanding of the empirical sciences and objective evidence you speak of.

Ask Joseph F. Smith or Joseph Fielding Smith who highly disagreed with the theory of evolution, and yet they were the chosen leader by God in spiritual things. Are you suggesting they are not to be trusted in spiritual things? It appears from your question, the implied question would be, should we remove section 138 in the Doctrine and Covenants because Joseph F. Smith disagreed and he didn't accept or believe in the objective evidence of the theory of evolution, which he and the First Presidency announced to the whole church, and which was republished by the Church in 2002?

Spiritual things are delivered by God, and a young boy [young woman] of 8, if close enough to the spirit will be much more spiritually in tuned than Michio -- a person who is easily representative of "ever learning but never coming to the knowledge of the truth."

Unpopular answer from MOE #438: Honestly, when a prophet makes some kind of statement against science and appears to be off the mark, it does hurt his credibility (to be fair, this is true of all people, not just prophets). When they make incorrect or inaccurate statements, it is quite natural to wonder what else they are getting wrong.

I tend to deal with credibility issues like this by taking the statements out of a person's area of expertise with a grain of salt. When I evaluate their spiritual statements, I don't generally consider the office the person holds as much as the impressions the statements leave on me.

[Anddenex]

Unpopular answer from MOE #438: Honestly, when a prophet makes some kind of statement against science and appears to be off the mark, it does hurt his credibility (to be fair, this is true of all people, not just prophets). When they make incorrect or inaccurate statements, it is quite natural to wonder what else they are getting wrong.

I tend to deal with credibility issues like this by taking the statements out of a person's area of expertise with a grain of salt. When I evaluate their spiritual statements, I don't generally consider the office the person holds as much as the impressions the statements leave on me.

Increasing our friendly relationship answer from Anddenex #50 (give or take a few):

In light of these two paragraphs I would then ask this question, when the prophet and his two counselors issue a letter to the Church collectively, is this within their expertise regarding the origin of man? Who is better to reveal the origin of man, science or God?

Which then would be followed up by, "Is the origin of man defined by science, by God, or by both? If by God, who would he reveal our origin to?

If by science, how could they possibly know what happened billions of years ago with any amount of surety? Which then would be followed up with, is billions of years ago their area of expertise, or is only the here and now their expertise?

If by both, then which expert is the head? If both assume to be the head and they contradict, then problems exist.

Although I would agree, when MoE tells me something that is inaccurate I tend to wonder what else he is wrong in...

To be fair, my response to Traveler was merely pointing out how the Lord has called many men who did not believe and who did not accept objective evidence given by science, or is the objective evidence really "common"?

I would be more concerned with a religion and its leader and their love for God, then I would with regard to their view of science and the subjective evidence provided, that some consider objective.

[Dove]

Hello,

My husband decided that there is not prove that shows that God exist, he doesn't break any commanment but does not believe in God anymore and that has confuse me at times making me doubt of God existense as well.

I feel like my marriage is soulless

Please share with me your experience about why do you believe there is a God please.

Wow, hearing about your husbands' new atheism hurts. My brother has also pretty much denounced his belief in God. I love him dearly and grieve that he's missing out on what is to me, the essence of life.

There are so many things in my life that prove to me there is a God. Many things that I know in my heart are real; but, that cannot be "proven" in a secular way. Like, all the priesthood blessings that have answered my private, personal prayers (the priesthood holder giving the blessing had no idea what I had prayed) in the exact words I had phrased the question in my prayer. Or, the many times I've been lead directly to things I've lost after I've prayed to find them. Or the power of the Book of Mormon as I read it daily. Or, as a missionary, being lead to a particular house where we shared the gospel with a sister who accepted it and was baptised.

I know God lives and loves me. I believe there is a purpose to us not being able to "scientifically" prove His existence. This is so we will develop faith. However, I believe that the universe is so orderly that to think it all fell together by the "big bang theory," without an intelligent being behind it, is rather ludicrous to me.

I am reminded of this saying. There are no atheists in a fox hole.

The Best

Dove

[MarginOfError]

Increasing our friendly relationship answer from Anddenex #50 (give or take a few):

In light of these two paragraphs I would then ask this question, when the prophet and his two counselors issue a letter to the Church collectively, is this within their expertise regarding the origin of man? Who is better to reveal the origin of man, science or God?

Which then would be followed up by, "Is the origin of man defined by science, by God, or by both? If by God, who would he reveal our origin to?

If by science, how could they possibly know what happened billions of years ago with any amount of surety? Which then would be followed up with, is billions of years ago their area of expertise, or is only the here and now their expertise?

If by both, then which expert is the head? If both assume to be the head and they contradict, then problems exist.

Although I would agree, when MoE tells me something that is inaccurate I tend to wonder what else he is wrong in...

To be fair, my response to Traveler was merely pointing out how the Lord has called many men who did not believe and who did not accept objective evidence given by science, or is the objective evidence really "common"?

I would be more concerned with a religion and its leader and their love for God, then I would with regard to their view of science and the subjective evidence provided, that some consider objective.

Here's a good review of the evolution of Evolution in mormon theology (see what I just did there?)

Mormon views on evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Origin of Man as a single document outside the context of history isn't too terrible. But you look at the full picture of what was being taught by those who wrote it, and it becomes less clear to me how much of it is pure doctrine and how much of it is written from an agenda. Joseph Fielding Smith is the first person I know of to formally introduce the idea that there was no blood before the Fall, and I can't help but think his ideas were influenced by his father.

It's interesting that when BH Roberts presented his evidence that evolution might not be as false as was indicated in The Origin of Man, a memo was sent out stating

Upon the fundamental doctrines of the Church we are all agreed. Our mission is to bear the message of the restored gospel to the people of the world. Leave Geology, Biology, Archaeology, and Anthropology, no one of which has to do with the salvation of the souls of mankind, to scientific research .... We can see no advantage to be gained by a continuation of the discussion ... but on the contrary are certain it would lead to confusion, division and misunderstanding if carried further. Upon one thing we should all be able to agree, namely, that Presidents Joseph F. Smith, John R. Winder and Anthon H. Lund were right when they said: 'Adam is the primal parent of our race.

What's particularly interesting is that the opinion held by the top leadership was made very public, but the opinion held by the dissenting leadership was circulated only in an internal memo.

Anyway, the short of it is this--for scientific matters, I'll take the word of credible scientists publishing work under peer review over the word of prophetic statements. At the same time, I will acknowledge that scientific knowledge can (and likely) will change over time. And it may either confirm or contradict prophetic statements.

When evaluating prophetic statements, I will search for the principles that are relevant to spiritual progression. Railing against evolution seems pointless to me from a prophet because the HOW God created the world isn't the realm of religion. The realm of religion is the WHY God created the world. That is a question evolutionary theory and science has never attempted to answer.

[rameumptom]

What proof could someone have that God does not exist? All anyone could do is believe there is no God.

Now then, what spiritual experiences have you had that show you that Heavenly Father is there and loves you?

That's all there is to it.