//God is great and powerful and worthy of our fear. He is also wise writing laws and teaching that never grow old or obsolete. His love is merciful, strong and protective. His justice is that of a king against enemies, as well as like a father's discipline to the children He loves.//

But he's still happy to let innocent kids die of malnutrition.

What an awesome god.

AJ Phillips.

I think a lot of your questions and challenges about God can be discussed more fully if we look at Jesus's teachings. I still would like to hear any of your experiences. And I'm sorry for showing contempt for your experiences (if I did it wasn't my intent. More out of frustration then anything else. My doubts are central on if you had an experience and rationalized it away, then how can that be. If you can explain an event or two and your rationale for not believing it was from a supernatural experience then I will probably trust what you say more.

To be honest it's hard to trust you based on some of the things you've said. Like you hold the idea of God existing to a higher standard of scrutiny then you hold everything else. It turns the confirmation bias into a skeptic's version of it. It seems like it's turned into a bias to find excuses how God doesn't exist. You might not see it that way, but look at it from my view. Answers to prayers become complicated but seem more reasonable then God being real. Even prayers answered immediately after they are said are easily tossed as co-incidence. This sounds un-rational to me and more defiantly argumentative.

Where do you want this conversation to go? We've explored my experiences and touched on philosophical arguments (agreeing on none of them). I would like to stay on only a few points at a time, or go into the topic of the sermon on the mount (which admittedly is many many points). But what about you? Where do you want this discussion to go? Again I'm sorry for my frustrations.

Toni Lavis. I don't trust you. But you seem to be begging for attention. Here is my standard. Something practical that can be observed.

1). Arguments don't rely on creatively insulting an opposing view. (Neither directly nor indirectly insulting them). It is childish and distracting. I will not acknowledge you as long as I see you do this in in response to me or to anyone else.

2). Enough of the obfuscating of your points, and having bait and switch arguments. These childish games are what a teen does to get out of trouble (unsuccessfully get out of trouble). If you have no real points without whining that you're being insulted or that the other person is avoiding the points that you never made clear, then you have no real points.

3). Over all be more mature. If you can't do that now then maybe in a few years you'll know how to. In that time someone else might give you more attention. Until then, I see no point for me to address anything you say.

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

«So my question is do you know (from your experience or those of people you know), does Hinduism have miracles and Angels witnessed by it's believers?»

Hindu literature is replete with cases of miracles, both objective and subjective, including in modern times. Some (specifically Yogananda) speak of angels too. I have not witnessed any objective miracle myself that I can be sure of, although some people that I met have. I do however consider many harmful things that could have occurred to me with high probability, but did not, as objective miracles. Neither myself nor anyone I know experienced angels. I did however experience some subjective miracles - and these are what really counts.

While the West speaks highly of objective reality and considers the material world to be important (thus also the questions pertaining to its creation), Hinduism considers the world an illusion, thus the question whether objective miracles exist, is of little or no religious consequence.

What matters most in Hinduism is the transformation of consciousness, culminating in the direct and permanent experience of one's unity and identity with God.

The Hindu scriptures, especially Patanjali's Yoga Sutras, therefore warn us of miracles. Accordingly, in advanced stages when one comes very close to God (but is not quite there yet), one gains all sorts of powers and can produce miracles, including objective ones. One must NOT be tempted by those powers or play with miracles, but continue to focus on God alone. Miracles might happen, but should be ignored - otherwise, this would bring the aspirant's downfall.

---

You raised many interesting points in your other post. God willing, I will find the time to address them later.

Not_Now.Soon,

I would be fascinated to hear how the teachings of Jesus negate the fact that the Christian god would be an absolute monster.

<<I think a lot of your questions and challenges about God can be discussed more fully if we look at Jesus's teachings.>>

I think if anything, they’d merely contradict them.

<<I still would like to hear any of your experiences.>>

Well, one example was a prayer which appeared to have been answered. There was a girl at church who was my age. I’d had a big crush on her since we were both 9. In all those years, we never spoke. I simply admired her from a distance. When we were 18, I prayed hard that God would let me date her. A couple of weeks later, I was doing just that.

There are countless explanations for this, ranging from mere co-incidence (After all, how many times had I prayed and nothing happened?); to subconscious behavioural changes on my part after a prayer to a god whom I trusted would provide me with what I wanted; to me remembering the timing of the events such that they favour the way in which I would have liked to have explained the co-incidence at the time.

<<And I'm sorry for showing contempt for your experiences.>>

I don’t think you have.

<<… if you had an experience and rationalized it away, then how can that be.>>

Because there are usually rational explanations. I didn’t try to rationalise the experiences and then stop believing. After I stopped believing, the more rational explanations became apparent because I no longer had the emotional need to interpret them in a particular way. I didn’t really have to think about it all that hard. The freaky co-incidences did make more sense, however, when I learned of confirmation bias and the line of research Toni has mentioned.

Continued...

…Continued

<<… you hold the idea of God existing to a higher standard of scrutiny then you hold everything else.>>

Yes, because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The amount of evidence I expect for any claim correlates with the extent to which I find the claim extraordinary.

<<It seems like it's turned into a bias to find excuses how God doesn't exist.>>

If you can point to me any instance where the supernatural is more plausible than rational explanations, then I will grant that you may have a point here. However, there would still be the issue of a position of scepticism not typically being something the individuals cling to for irrational or emotional reasons.

<<Even prayers answered immediately after they are said are easily tossed as co-incidence. This sounds un-rational to me ...>>

It’s perfectly rational in light of confirmation bias and the ‘pokies’ example Toni provided. You are likely focusing on the few hits and playing down the numerous misses.

<<Where do you want this conversation to go?>>

That’s up to you. I think I provided plenty to respond to in my last post. How about exploring some objective evidence for God? Personal experiences are too subjective and the subjective is never very reliable. Apologists like William Lane Craig, for example, believe in god because of their personal experiences and a feeling that God has touched their lives, but they’ll never appeal that in a formal debate.

Or, we don’t have to go anywhere. Usually the theists I debate have either left by now started hurling insults anyway.