I don't know if this topic has already been discussed but I'll ask it anyway.

Millions of people today belief in God and say that God exists but if nobody believed in God would God still exist?

Human you are asking a very simple question. Yes belief does have the ability to make things happen or if you prefer exist, be real. There are many cases that people were cured from seemingly hopeless diseases by a miracle, i would say their belief and faith to something higher cured them.
Mind is a very powerfull and strange tool ;) .
As for gods there is a queue for that.
Gods death is oblivion, not anyone to remembers them to acknowledge their existence.

Does belief make something a fact?

No.

Did the world change from flat to round at some point?

It might have.

It has been proven beyond a doubt that miracles can happen, the problem is that belief is not usually a factor.

Did the world change from flat to round at some point? and

It might have. At this point it is probably time for me to bow out of the discussion. If this is the belief then we're all probably going to just talk past one another because I can't even begin to fathom this as a possibility. God's supposed miracle of a flood pales in comparison to man's ignorance making the world flat.

if God exists, he would no matter if he had believers or not.

If he does not exist, he would not excist no matter if he believers or not.

When I speak of existence, I mean something that is on its own.

Does faith make something real? Depends.

If all those you question say yes, then it is real. If just one say no, then it's not real.

I'm no philosopher, but I seem to recall that a number of thinkers have postulated that external reality might not exist (the only thing ABSOLUTELY provable is the Cartesian "I think, therefore I am"), and what we percieve as reality is largely the creation of our minds....I always think of the interrogation scene in 1984 when I hear this argument - the one in which O'Brien tells Winston about the party's philosophy of power...one thing....if belief really did change the world, wouldn't every scientist always find his or her hypothesis to be correct, simply due to individual belief :) Or maybe the scientist's belief in a consistent, independent external universe is stronger than belief in the hypothesis. Now here's a thought. What happens if belief can change the world, and a majority of people believe strongly that it doesn't? :)

Ironbeard, not even the Cartesian claim of "I think, therefore I am" is absolutely provable. It assumes three things: the "I" (why is the individual the focus, and not a nation or a cell?), the "think" (what is thinking, and how can you really prove that you are truly thinking?), and "am" (what does it really mean to be?). Descartes stopped too soon!

But I second Laches. The idea that belief can remake reality is ridiculous. It comes from playing too much Planescape and playing too little outdoors. His flat-earth example, and rastilin's reply, perfectly summarize the opposing mentalities.

Mithrantir, as for those people who claim to have willed themselves to a cure, that's scientifically explainable. The most likely possibility is that their beliefs were completely incidental to the physical healing, but the patients irrationally credit their irrational beliefs. We hear about people willing themselves to healing but not about those that are just as willful but die - because they're dead, so they can't tell us! It would be as if we tried to "will" a coin into only flipping heads, but only recorded those times we got heads.

Another possibility is that mental processes can have psychosomatic effects. But that's not belief remaking reality - it's one physical process (flashing neurons) triggering another physical process (blood cells or what-not).

Or another possibility is that there really is a God who listens to sincere prayers and acts miraculously. But in that case God is real and acts in response to the prayers - not that God is empowered or created by them.

So in answer to your question, Human - yes, even if no one believed in God, He would still exist. As Laches already emphasized, personal ignorance of a fact does not make the fact any less factual.

Well thank you Grey for proving my point. As i said what you believe is what kind of glass you use to perceive the world. If you choose the blue you will live in a blue world if you choose black, a black world and so on.
The idea that belief can remake reality is ridiculous. It comes from playing too much Planescape and playing too little outdoors. His flat-earth example, and rastilin's reply, perfectly summarize the opposing mentalities.
You seem to not to understand that the issue here is practically personal. IF I BELIEVE that the earth is flat then in my reality EARTH IS FLAT. I can't understand why you seem to think that we must share the same beliefs. And if you don't believe me then go and see a phyciatrist and ask him about the lunnatics and how can you define that a man is crazy. I can't understand why you absolute and with your opinion and do not even consider others people thoughts
Mithrantir, as for those people who claim to have willed themselves to a cure, that's scientifically explainable. The most likely possibility is that their beliefs were completely incidental to the physical healing, but the patients irrationally credit their irrational beliefs. We hear about people willing themselves to healing but not about those that are just as willful but die - because they're dead, so they can't tell us! It would be as if we tried to "will" a coin into only flipping heads, but only recorded those times we got heads.

Another possibility is that mental processes can have psychosomatic effects. But that's not belief remaking reality - it's one physical process (flashing neurons) triggering another physical process (blood cells or what-not).
Well that is exactly what i said for the subject of belief. And thank you again for proving me true. If here was a guy who was deeply religious, he would now have the exact opposite reaction. Because according to his beliefs miracles do happen and they show us the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ hallelulaj (whatever) ;)

And thank you, Mithrantir, for proving Laches' point.

If you believe that the world is flat, then you act as if the world is flat. But that doesn't make the world one bit flatter. And if I believe that the world is round, then I act as if the world is round. But that doesn't make the world one bit rounder.

If I claim that the world is round, it's not that I'm being inconsiderate of other's thoughts. It's that the earth itself is inconsiderate of other's thoughts.

And speaking as someone who is indeed "deeply religious" (hallelujah!), prayers are not petty perceptions or wishful thinking, but conversations with a real Person. It's like chatting with a human doctor to discuss possible solutions - the doctor does all the actual physical work, even though the work was prompted by "merely" talking. So prayers are not remaking or reshaping reality but merely recognizing it.

Millions of people today belief in God and say that God exists but if nobody believed in God would God still exist? It's the same as if I stopped believing in you. Will you cease to exist when I say you don't?

Let's say, your friends gather and make majority vote. You lose 20 to 0. Do you vanish?

Or will your computer dissolve in the air if you stop believing that it exists?

As a matter of fact, yes, a strong enough belief can have a physical, measureable effect upon the world, but this takes a focused, and developed mind. It's called magick, but it doesn't rely so much on belief as force of will. This is how miracuous healings can be performed on another person, not psychocosymatically. Of course, this can be done in other ways as well, ways that supercede our limited forces of belief and will, directly, given the proper initiations and attunements, irregardless of the nature of the belief of the practitioner or the recipient, again, I talk from personal experience. We talked about this before, and Grey Magistrate, among others including myself, agreed that nothing can really be proved or disproved, eventually you have to take something on faith. I don't really care if you think I am telling the truth, I have had enough experience to believe this (almost, I am never certain even of my own existence) beyond doubt, and I also believe that you shall eventually agree with me, of this I am certain. As to how this applies to God, that is silly, you can't talk of God being independant of anything, or dependant on anyhting else; you are God. God is infinite, not limited by finite notions (such as will, belief- to make something subject to this is to make it finite, and no longer absolute), besides, if you are talking about gods, not God, then I am sure they have a far superior ability than us.

You'll just have to believe me on that ;)

Anybody remember the bit in the Hitchhiker Guide books where they proved the non-existence of God and he disappeared in a puff of logic?

Seriously, this seems almost juvenile, as it's no different than when my son repeats "Is not," over and over. If something exists and is reasonably provable (after all, how do I know that any of you are anything more than computer generated personalities), what difference does it make whether someone believes you exist?

Numerous people believe in extra-terrestrial life, numerous others do not. Since no one has decent video of a landing, we're operating on few facts. That being said, half the aliens in the universe haven't popped out of existence because a few humans didn't believe in them. Equally valid is the point that there are no Vogons clearing the way for an intergalactic bypass simply because a few of us believe in them.

dmc, I'm not talking about the shaky undisciplined minds of the general populace, allthough that, as Mithrantir has pointed out, can have a limited effect upon their environment (such as the placebo effect). I agree that allthough, for all intents and purposes, the world believing in a Flat Earth means that it will in effect, be flat for those people who believ such things, is not likely to actually make the world flat.

You're thinking that humans hold the only belief that's necessary. There are a lot of other denizens of the Eart that might of disagreed, besides, the Earth knows what shape it is, and it believes in it's self.

Manus, I actually hadn't read your post as I was typing mine when you entered yours. So none of that was aimed at you. However, if my six year old and my dog didn't believe in you, you would still exist. If all of the dust mites in the world denied your existence, you would still exist. (If you're a computer generated personality, however, all of their belief wouldn't make you flesh and blood.)

Edit - Just re-read your post. If you are serious in your statement that:

You're thinking that humans hold the only belief that's necessary. There are a lot of other denizens of the Eart that might of disagreed, besides, the Earth knows what shape it is, and it believes in it's self. then I think that we may have nothing further to say, as I cannot comprehend how anyone could believe that a planet is self-aware.

[ November 26, 2003, 01:53: Message edited by: dmc ]

Simple answer: 'no'.

Belief has no impact on anything in the real world. Belief can spur things into happening but the act of believing itself does not make anything happen.

However I'd like to quote Sid Mier's Alpha Centauri "God has not been proven to not exist, therefore [according to society] he must exist." Belief in something can make it real to 'you' or to a group of people who believe the same thing. However this reality is limited to themselves and for something to exist it must exist for everyone.

Yet you can't argue that 'love' is an exception to this rule. Love happens usually between one person and something else, it exists through that person for that person has created the love. The fact that the person loves another person or object is what is real. eg. Sarah loves Andrew. That is real for everyone for in the world Sarah DOES love Andrew. It might not affect anyone else and they might not know about it but that doesn't make it not real.

Also to argue that belief makes things real is flawed because it also means to 'not' believe in something makes it non-existant. Both arguments must apply to make the other correct since if belief has the power to 'create' something it must also have the power to 'uncreate' something. Nobody believes that there is a planet called 'Narbalorathuk' in the 'Ursala' solar system under the 'Ronian' galaxy but that doesn't mean that there 'isn't' or that there can't be one. There 'could' be one yet nobody believes it.

It's not not believing in it, it's believing in it not- that is, the strong belief that it does not exist, and the will to enforce it, not simply the absence of belief either way.

There are many forms of consciousness different to that of our own. A planet does not have to be self-aware to know it exists, it wouldn't recognize that it is conscious, that is, unlike us, it is not apperceptive, and again, your six year old and dog could not will me out of existence, because I, and many others who have met me, believe me to be real. I am talking about very small changes here- telekenesis, levitation, manifestation of fire, healing, transportation, not such large (and nigh impossible feats) as the annhilation or annullment of another being, if that is even possible.

Manus, you write:

We talked about this before, and Grey Magistrate, among others including myself, agreed that nothing can really be proved or disproved, eventually you have to take something on faith.Yes...but my point was that some acts of "faith" are much more rational than others. "I think, therefore I am" and "Others think, therefore I am" both have to be taken on faith, but the first accords much better with perceived reality as a whole.

You write:

I am talking about very small changes here - telekenesis, levitation, manifestation of fire, healing, transportation, not such large (and nigh impossible feats) as the annhilation or annullment of another being, if that is even possible.Yes, you can take that on faith. Or, you can look at ACTUAL occurrences in reality. Instead of telekenesis, we have cranes to move huge objects around. Instead of levitation, we have elevators. Instead of manifestations of fire, we have gas stoves. Instead of psychic healing, we have medical science. Instead of transportation, we have cars. And instead of annihilation, we have guns and knives.

Sure, this world could be no more than the sum total of the universe's dreams. It does take a bit of faith to accept that this world is real. But which side has the preponderance of evidence? - the side backed by thousands of years of careful science, philosophy, and theology, or the side which claims, as you do, Manus, that "you are God" and can wield "magick...as force of will"?

Which brings us back to Human's original question. Judging the world as we know it, does evidence create or reflect reality?

Alright. Personal beliefs aside, I am going to say Yes, belief does create reality.

If you percieve something, you believe that it exists in the way you are percieving it. A desk is a desk because you percieve it to be a desk, light reflecting off of the desk caught by your eyes make you visualize the deck, and so on. But what happens when you are not percieving the desk? Does it vanish? Wink out of existence? The logical answer would be no, because I could look at the desk, or any sort of matter, and it would be the exact same way that it was the last time I looked at it. From that, I could postulate that the desk will be still be a desk EVERY time I look at it.

But that is faulty logic. That line of thinking states that things will happen simply because they have always happened. This can be assumed, but never logically proved, because things happen in the future, and the future can never be truly known. If I drop a ball, I can logically assume it will fall, and the probablitly that it will fall is high, but it is not CERTAIN that it will fall, because it has never been dropped this particular time before. So going back to the desk, once I turn away, I can ASSUME it will still be there, but I cannot KNOW it will still be there, because I have not percieved it yet. Since I am not percieving the matter with my own senses, why does it contine to reform all the time, even when nobody is there to percieve it?

The answer lies in the Omiscience of God. All matter exists because God is continually percieving it, and therefore no matter is ever unpercieved, and at risk of ceasing to exist. If a tree falls in a forest, it does make a sound because God hears it. God's continual perception is responsible for the existence of all matter. Using this argument, although admittedly I am not quite sure where it came from (although I should know; I heard it in class and it might be on the exam...), then perception IS reality; if one ceased to perceive something, then that something may cease to exist, and although improbable, it is possible. So things exist because God is continually percieving them. People's belief in God does not cause him to exist; God's belief in people causes them to.

Let me try to pitch my two cents into the arena. I think that esentially we have two philosophies coming to blows, pertaining to the nature of the world, yet that needn't be the case. We have the realists on one side, represented by Grey, Laches and DMC...and, shall we call them the hyper-realists...as spoken by Manus and Mithrantir. The disagreement has arisen because our world is both real and unreal at the same time. Before you order the straight jacket...hear me out.

There are parts of this world that are solidly real, and can not be affected by faith, hope, belief or prayer. There is no ammount of delusion that will cause the Earth to flatten, time to stand still, or death to be avoided. There are hard and fast elements to this world that will exist regardless of what you, I or anyone does. I could believe with all sincerity that this monitor I gaze into does not exist...yet it will remain until I carry it out to the garbage can...or they come to take ME away. This is the real world that the realists are speaking of.

Just as (in my belief) the human body is a unique combination of a real flesh and an intangible spirit...there are elements to the world that flirt at the edges of observable science and reality. It is this realm of the world that Manus speaks of...where this hyper-reality can be affected to some degree. Whether you call it Magick, miracles, telekinesis, God, angels, demonic possesion, faith...there is a part of this world and our lives not bound up in the rock solid reality within which we live each day. Can man translate hyper-reality into reality and change obvious fact?...no...but in that area where physical reality doesn't always hold sway, the above mentioned tags can wield significant power.

Whether it is a Pagan circling in the forest or an Orthodox Christian who venerates the relics of a long dead Saint, this hyper-real world has been recognized through all of human existence...it is only the arrogance of science that has drowned out the quieter voice of art.

So you see, at least as far as I see it, both sides are right, you are just talking about different things. Sort of like pondering the usefulness of water for washing and longing for it's necessity to preserve life.

I now have to return to my blacklights and the contemplation of my navel.

Thanks for your peacemaking, Hacken Slash. But I still think our two camps are irreconcilable. (You put your two cents into the arena, I put my two feet in my mouth.) Get your straitjacket ready!

I'm someone who believes in "miracles, God, angels, demonic posession, [and] faith". Not because they're unreal, but because they're very much real! Reality is not limited to the material, and the spiritual and material affect each other. An example: if I'm physically exhausted and skip my prayer, then my physical condition has affected my spiritual side. Or if I pray for healing and get healed, then the spiritual has affected the physical.

But this is very different from what Manus and Mithrantir have posited, who argue that it is mind and will that determine what is and isn't real.

I guess you could say that the "realist" camp is concerned with what IS, but the "hyper-realist" camp is concerned with what we THINK. So Laches, dmc, and I could have a legitimate argument about whether or not God exists, and each of us could marshal relevant arguments and evidence, because we believe that the truth exists independent of our own opinions. But how do you argue with someone who makes the truth an incidental result of opinion (whether of individuals or planets)?

I repeat my earlier question: Does evidence create or reflect reality?

Don't you see Grey? I'm saying the same thing you are. This reality is but a shade of the spiritual, the hyper-reality within which we have our base. Our thoughts -that is, our beliefs and our will- are a far step closer to that spiritual plane than are our physical bodies, thus when the two compete (in a developed, or spiritually minded or orientated person, who is becoming aware of the world around him, becoming more of that world than the other) then his thoughts will be the superior- our bodies, this earth, only the current vehicle for those thoughts, as "angels" or "demons" have other vehicles, other material bases like ours, only finer.

You say you pray to God for Healing - I say the same thing, except I see God as a part within both myself, the person I am healing, the force or energy that is transmitted, and everything else- I call that energy in, and pray to my own, and their, higher selves, just as you pray to the christian God, and my intent, my frame of mind of worship, awe, and love, for something greater than us, and us ourselves as a part of that, is the same.

Since my thoughts are superior to my physical body, can you not see that if the body can affect the spiritual side, so can your thoughts? If one is full of hate or bitterness, these things will not come easy. Likewise, if you perform such things, you can no-longer contain such hurtful mental states (for the time being at least).

I agree with both Hacken Slash and Shazamdude, so while we may be able to do certain things, some things we may not be yet able to overcome, as everything is but a part of that omniscient ever-present God- "in him we live and move and have our being." and while our thoughts can have dramatic effects on how we percieve that world, and how we react to it, the world at the same time is reacting to us. Spirit and matter are two shades of the same thing; we are not affecting reality with our thoughts, we are affecting other, denser, thoughts, we are affecting only ourselves.

With our thoughts, we make the world.

I know this is a type of philosophy or theology that is rooted in personal belief, I know that, wanting to believe it, I will cause any evidence I see to back up my own claim, thus I am flawed, but so are all others.

So evidence does neither, it neither creates nor reflects reality- it reflects our own perceptions, and creates our own beliefs. It is these perceptions and beliefs which then create more evidence.

Depending on those we currently hold, we will act accordingly, and change the world - not to fit our perceptions by any means, we may be totally incorrect, but it will have some effect, that is certain. If we believe a man should be killed, and kill him, it has not meant that he was therefore guilty of deserving death, but it does mean that he is now dead, has been killed.

Does this mean if we believe something then it is true? no, of course not, our opinions are not that strong, as I said before, each thing knows itself, and God, and gods, being a part of those things, know them also. But our belief creates something, either incidentally and unrelated or intentionally and substantial. It is the intentionally and substantial of which I have been talking, but I fear you have taken me to mean that all things are effected in this way, which saying I am not.

Evidence reflects our own reality, and then creates a new one- as does everything.

;) there is no spoon

I'm sorry, I couldn't help myself. :)

It's the same as if I stopped believing in you. Will you cease to exist when I say you don't? As long as he believes in himself, he exists.

We shape our own reality, and thus, there is no spoon. I have chopsticks.

I hope that makes as much sense as it is supposed to...

Manus and Mithrantir have brought 2 very important words into this discussion that I think are very important namely: Awareness and Perception.


So keeping those in words in mind, I'm going to modify the question somewhat and ask this:

A thousand years from now, nobody will believe in God and all relevant literature and belief in God will have been eradicated to the extent that nobody is aware that there is a God.

Will God still exist?

[ November 26, 2003, 12:52: Message edited by: Human ]

A thousand years from now, nobody will believe in God and all relevant literature and belief in God will have been eradicated to the extent that nobody is aware that there is a God.

Will God still exist?
Is this a hypothetical or do you have a time machine? If you assert it as fact, you have far more confidence in the assertion than I would. I also think that by asserting it as fact you've just sidetracked the entire discussion.

So, I'm giving the benefit of the doubt and treating it as a hypothetical. I'll point out the question is already answered above multiple times. It isn't a new question - it's the same question you already asked phrased differently.

What is, is. My being ignorant doesn't change that.

It seems to me there is a great reluctance in these days to say - "you're wrong." It's like it has become taboo or dirty in some parts to tell someone that. So, instead, we bend over backwards to find a way that everyone can be right all the time. It's not that people are wrong, it's just that they're right in their reality which is their opinion. I don't mean to be offensive but I think it is all incredibly silly. Surfer-guru philosophy is what it was referred to in school.

So, does belief change reality? No. You may think it does but you'd be wrong. I can't convince you of that however so we're at an impasse. I think impasse is what is being recognized.

If you believe that the world is flat, then you act as if the world is flat. But that doesn't make the world one bit flatter. And if I believe that the world is round, then I act as if the world is round. But that doesn't make the world one bit rounder.
I have posted that belief is a personal issue haven't i? So we agreed from the beginning.
As for the world or if the sky is pink or if we really leave upside down or whatever else i can only tell you that only if i had a very disciplined and powerfull mind i could alter your reality. Mine i can relatively easy but yours or anyone elses that is tough and dangerous.
Sure, this world could be no more than the sum total of the universe's dreams. It does take a bit of faith to accept that this world is real. But which side has the preponderance of evidence? - the side backed by thousands of years of careful science, philosophy, and theology, or the side which claims, as you do, Manus, that "you are God" and can wield "magick...as force of will"? Mysticism and the occult studies were there before science and there is a sea of knowledge hidden from the masses for they own sake. You make call it magic or whatever, but don't forget that Church is performing these rituals too. Because when you go to church to attend the liturgy you see a ritual taking place and you are taking part even unconciously. If you want we can discuss it further but it is another subject. These rituals are not randomly created. They follow some principles and regulations allthough you as just another simple worshipper may be anaware of the real meaning.
This world (i mean our society our enviroment as it is today)is something that we have formed not something that existed before we came in. What a better proof to show you that we affect and change our enviroment with our minds. Even when you say crate or skycraper or car, you are talking about things someone was dreaming of them put his mind into work to create them. Yes it took thousands of years but few people have the ability to change reality at an instant.
Human if noone believed in God and he was forgotten from everyone he would be as good as dead. He may still exist but he could noway affect you or do anything that involves someone other than him.
But i want to take the opportunity you gave me to say that God is more a need to quiet our fears than anything else. He may exist and our lifespam is too short for anyone to be able to prove it as Plato said. But much more than that we need to believe that there is someone bigger/stronger/wiser/eternal out there who watches us with a mercifull and caring eye.
I believe that there is a higher force, spirit (call it Buddha, God, Allah, Zaratustra, Zeus, Manitou) but he exists within us and the whole world. He is the essence of the world. We are mere vessels for a portion of that energy.

What I was trying to get at is that perception and awareness dictates what exists and what does not exist. The first question asked if God would exist if no-one believed in him (This made for the allowence that they are aware of the concept but nobody believes it e.g. bibles as a reference point on which to base this belief). The second point just goes a little bit further by saying what if no-one believed in God and all trace of information or reference towards him were eradicated, would he still exist.

If God existed in literature or before our time, then he most probably did exist simply for the fact that someone or another believed or perceived him to be real. If nobody was aware of him in the first place and there was no reference to him whatsoever, would he still exist knowing that we can not perceive what he is? If you are thinking of the expression "I think therefore I am", I think Grey covered that topic already.

To Laches, sorry for the confusion, it seems I'm doing that alot today.

P.S. Ithought yousaid you were bowing out of this discussion? :rolleyes:

What is, is. My being ignorant doesn't change that Powerful statement. I agree with this 100% however we can't always tell what is and what isn't. If god is, he is. If he isn't, he isn't. Simple as that.

What I was trying to get at is that perception and awareness dictates what exists and what does not exist. Flawed. The only thing perception dictates is what we believe exist. Existence is absolute and universal. Just because I close my eyes doesn't mean the world cease to exist does it? My perception of the world might cease to exist, but the very existence of the world is certainly beyond my "faithly" control.

Why is there some kind of assumption here that God requires feedback and/or acknowledgment of his/her existence? If we assume the usual panoply of attributes for God (omniscient, omnipotent and, perhaps, omnibenevolent), God will have no use for our prayers (sincere or not), as they are for us, not for God. A truly omniscient and omnipotent being isn't standing around waiting to be noticed.

So, to take the thousand years with an eraser question, God couldn't care less, we are only hurting ourselves by denying his/her existence. He/she still exists (you think the architect of the universe is going to disappear in a puff of non-belief?).

I think, ultimately, that I have a larger difference with Manus than is set forth above in that I believe that there is a physical rationale for everything. I do not believe that anyone has "mental powers" which cannot be explained with physics. Now, we may not be different after all, but only if Manus' theory is posited upon there being some mass/energy conversion process that is indetectible right now but which allows for the release of some energy potential from bodies of mass and a resulting projection of that energy to do the telekinesis, etc. I don't think that's the case, but I am willing to argue that. I am not willing to argue such things as a self-perceiving planet or the creation of energy from nowhere by human beings (I leave the entire debate of the existence of God specifically out of this question -- I will suggest that we accept the existence of God and his/her ability to create something out of nothing or we are going to be seriously bogged down in this discussion).

In regards to spirtual things I believe that belief does indeed make something a fact.

To a born again Christian I am hellbound as I do not believe in Jesus. In his heaven I will not be.

In my belief I am worthy of heaven and have every expectation to be invited.

To those who believe in nothing, I expect upon death they become worm food and their spirit dies with them.

I firmly believe in the power of the mind/positive thinking. Does it always work, probably not. Does it never work, I doubt it.

To those who believe in nothing, I expect upon death they become worm food and their spirit dies with them.
I belief that happens to anyone, regardless of his or her beliefs.

i fail to see how belief will somehow become fact, unless we are able to shape reality with our minds

which we can't

this isn't the matrix

if nobody believed in God would God still exist? I think the question is poorly phrased. I don't know whether the poster is a believer but as stated the question assumes a priori the existence of a supreme being. So the question needs to be rephrased:

Does the belief of millions in God cause Him to exist?

Clearly the answer is no for both believers and non-believers.

The posit that belief, faith, prayer, thought alone can create or alter reality is an absurdity and I find it worrying that many people here appear to believe that it is so. What are we? Cargo cultists? Painted savages praying to the moon?

If you care to, you can calculate the energy of your thoughts. The electrical activity of your neurons generates, what, a few milliwatts. Multiply this by the number of seconds that you think about something (or pray to your god) and you get the energy of your thoughts, in joules. It isn't a very great deal and is dissipated as heat anyway.

As for the hot air about whether things continue to exist when they are not perceived, pur-lease, enough of the first year philosophy already. As humans we make assumptions about how the world works (so does every creature, for that matter, but we are alone in being able to consider them). They're part of the software of our brains and nobody needs to work them out from first principles. One assumption that we make is that the world doesn't vanish every time we blink. It is no coincidence that our assumptions tally with how the world actually works. If they didn't we would be no more than part of the fossil record because we'd have died out while trying to eat and f**k rocks.

Laches. If you can be bothered.

I agree that faith can't change reality, but my question would be having said this,

"You may think it does but you'd be wrong. I can't convince you of that however so we're at an impasse."

why do you need to convince me or anyone else?

This is a sort of devil's advocate type question, I agree with you, but not the convince bit.

Hehe, dmc, when you've grown up surrounded by people who possess these "mental powers" you'll find you accept their existence far more readily :)

Besides, mass and energy are the same thing, even from physics point of view (I was awarded a scholarship to study physics after all), E=mc^2 anyone?

Besides, there are finer forms of energy than that subject to the puny wills of scientists! ;)

Can you move your arm? then you can read another's thoughts, heal another's wounds, stop another's beating heart, bend a spoon even - they are all a part of you just as much as is the arm.

Chris Williams, please read the post before you reply. If you have not had any experience in these fields I understand your hesitancy, I even expect it, but to resort to derrogoratory is unnecessary I think.

From the nature of your post I can tell you are a staunch materialist. From personal experience I know you are therefore wrong in at least some of your beliefs- having had a good deal of experience with those things not physical, that you would say are impossible.

I don't know who cargo cultists are, or why you feel so hostile towards them (you mentioned them in another post as well), but I don't see what the moon has to do with anything- and if someone wants to paint themselves and pray to it, who are we to disagree; it may even work. Such things are usually simply a focus for something else, or mean more than what they seem on the surface- but just because everyone doesn't feel they must explain their reasons to you, doesn't mean they have none.

@Manus
First off, an explanation of cargo cults. During the war in the Pacific, the Americans set up air bases in many remote islands in the South Pacific bringing with them various goods and suchlike. After the war, they left. In some parts of the South Pacific these men and their machines have become objects of veneration. The collective term for these cults is "cargo cults". The cultists build effigies of aeroplanes and pray to them in the vain hope that these will bring back the men in their flying machines who will then provide for all the followers' needs (I was referring to these effigies in another post when I said that aeroplanes built on religious principles do not fly, whereas those built on scientific principles most certainly do). I put it to you that educated people who believe in the power of prayer or faith healing or whatever are no less superstitious than these South Sea Islanders.

Can you move your arm? then you can read another's thoughts, heal another's wounds, stop another's beating heart, bend a spoon even - they are all a part of you just as much as is the arm. The conclusion here does not follow from the question. There is a well known causal connection between the intent to move your arm and the movement of your arm. If you sever the connection between your brain and your arm, as happens in cases of quadriplegia, then all the will in the world will not cause your arm to move. It does not follow that if you have the ability to perform non-miracles with your mind (moving your arm) that you have the power to perform miracles (stopping another's heart). What's more, there are no verifiable, repeatable cases of any such thing happening. Spoon bending? It's a conjurer's trick. You might as well claim that Siegfried and Roy have miraculous powers.

From personal experience I know you are therefore wrong in at least some of your beliefs- having had a good deal of experience with those things not physical, that you would say are impossible. Please elaborate. If you are referring to faith healing or anything similar, there is nothing to explain. There are many sick people; they often get better. Even conditions which do not hold out a positive prognosis sometimes go into spontaneous remission. Because we do not understand the mechanism of spontaneous remissions, this does not mean that we should seek supernatural explanations. Faith healers are charlatans who trumpet their rare successes while keeping quiet about their frequent failures. You don't need to invoke magic to explain faith healing, you only need to invoke statistics.

Also, for anybody here who does believe in faith healing, please think about the logical implications, because they're rather nasty. Let's say that I have terminal bowel cancer. A faith healer offers his services, holds his hands over my belly and says "be healed!" I don't get better like most people in these cases. It is either my fault because I lacked faith or else it's because God is a capricious type who wasn't in a giving mood that day.

To a born again Christian I am hellbound as I do not believe in Jesus. In his heaven I will not be.
You are to be judged by your actions not what do you believe. There are many christians that allthough they believe they won't be allowed in. And Jesus Christ did not mentioned anything about believing in Him and gaining access to heaven as an outcome.
i fail to see how belief will somehow become fact, unless we are able to shape reality with our minds

which we can't

this isn't the matrix It becomes a fact to the one who believes it not to anyone else.
I believe we can given certain requirments are met.
You don't know this for a fact.You assume/hope/believe we are not in this situation, you and noone else so far can prove it.
If you care to, you can calculate the energy of your thoughts. The electrical activity of your neurons generates, what, a few milliwatts This is conventional type of energy there alternatives you know. Just because our society relys upon a limited number of energy types does not mean that there are other types unknown to us.
The posit that belief, faith, prayer, thought alone can create or alter reality is an absurdity and I find it worrying that many people here appear to believe that it is so. What are we? Cargo cultists? Painted savages praying to the moon?
Please read the posts. There are conditions that must be met for this to happen, i have written some of them, and certainly not everyone is able to create something or alter something just by belief there are the before mentioned conditions that this person must meet

I just can't leave well enough alone! OK, two quick asides before I go to bed.

First, Mithrantir, you write:

You are to be judged by your actions not what do you believe. There are many christians that although they believe they won't be allowed in. And Jesus Christ did not mention anything about believing in Him and gaining access to heaven as an outcome.Uh...I think Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Revelation are in disagreement with you here. And these are only the books where Christ says, first-person, that He is the only way to salvation - the rest of the epistles make the same claim. Look up John 14:6, if you want a specific verse.

Second, Chris - I hesitate to say anything that might make you judge me any less of a "perceptive chap", but you write:

I put it to you that educated people who believe in the power of prayer or faith healing or whatever are no less superstitious than these South Sea Islanders.Really, need we throw out the baby with the bathwater to prove your point? Christianity is on an entirely different level, rationality-wise, than cargo-cults or paleo-gnostic Buddhist-cum-Budhist mysticism. Even if you disagree that Christianity is true, its millennia of thorough theology, philosophy, and cross-cultural adaptation give it a "reasonableness" upon which science should hesitate to claim an exclusive monopoly.

Uh...I think Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Revelation are in disagreement with you here. And these are only the books where Christ says, first-person, that He is the only way to salvation - the rest of the epistles make the same claim. Look up John 14:6, if you want a specific verse. Well i happen to know, to have read about or heard about if you prefer, that these gospels and all the gospels to be exact are in their "official" form not the exact copy of the original to put it midly. Furthermore there is a rumour that they are more gospels, that are classified as improper, and are not distributed in any way. And don't forget that church is another multiethnic company that tries to preserve her assets.
So as to if one must be a christian to gain access to paradise let me tell you that for the roman officer who took his sick servant to Jesus to cure him, he told him that he was blessed and surelyhe would go to paradise because he was caring, not because he was not christian, something he had stated in front of Jesus after all.

I can't speak for the rest, but in RC Church, faith isn't believed to guarantee salvation. Lack of faith doesn't preclude salvation. No one is deprived of opportunity for salvation. Condemnation is earned through rejection of salvation. Neither will works alone save you. You always need grace and, essentially, grace is the most important here, since without grace no one would be saved. In any case, the path leads through Christ's offering.

As for the topic, I find it surprising how many people believe that belief has creational and/or destructive power. As though your foughts could give singular entity and material existence to a concept. Or make something material a concept. One has nothing to do with the other.

[ November 30, 2003, 00:39: Message edited by: chevalier ]

Mithrantir, uh...the passage in question (Matthew 8:5-13) says explicitly that the Roman centurion is saved because of his faith in Christ, not his caring for the servant (verse 10). And Christ immediately follows this up (verses 11-12) to say that quite a few would not enter paradise.

As for the idea that the gospels are not in their original form, or that there are other gospels...I think this only further emphasizes Chris Williams' point. If you walk away from cold, calculating rationality, you end up filling your mind with all sorts of superstitious nonsense. But this ain't the place for a thorough discussion of lower criticism (check http://www.sorcerers.net/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=20;t=000519;p=2 if you're really interested).

The American Episcoplians do it right - they acknowledge that their newfound endorsement of homosexuality is unbiblical, but say that a) the Bible is wrong, and b) the Holy Spirit is guiding them to new revelation. It's more rational to take the Bible as it is - the best-attested manuscript in the ancient world - and then decide whether it's true or false, rather than pretending the book is "missing" the parts you wish were included or has "extraneous material" that was snuck in later by sneaky churchmen.

[EDIT: I mentioned specific examples which the moderator warned me could be considered hostile comparisons by those who don't hold my beliefs. The moderator is right, and the examples have been removed. So my apologies - I may be a zealot, but I don't mean to flame anyone, honest!]

[ November 30, 2003, 05:17: Message edited by: Grey Magistrate ]

I say no. And so does the Bible. Faith is a means to an end, a tool, but it is not the actual power behind the spirit world or odd occurences.

I apologize for only breezing over the other comments. I hope I'm not repeating anything others may have said.

There is a sort of thing we call "faith" that is a part of how God reveals himself. There's faith to believe in God, but then there's the spiritual gift we also call "faith", faith to obtain miracles and such. It only takes a small amount of this faith to do great things--Jesus said people could throw mountains around if we had only a little bit.

It's this sort of "I think it and it happens" that we are discussing. The God of the Bible claims to have this sort of power. Those of you who read Marvel comics may remember the Beyonder, a deity-like character who was defeated because while he had "faith" to create things from his thoughts, he didn't have self-control, so he imagined being defeated and so he was.

If I believe there is a monster next to me, I may poop in my pants--my belief created something stinky, in that case. So obviously, mis-belief can have consequences. And so can belief.

But again, the answer is no. From my understanding, faith is a means that God channels his power through, not a super-secret power to bend reality.

Damn It. I have not read the previous posts in this topic, but this is still my answer, no matter what other people might say/believe!

Simply put, there is no freaking god(s)! Noone but you is responsible for you actions! There is no destiny! Life is what you make it to be, for better or worse, but there will be no divine being in the end to evaluate your way of living. This may be a hard truth for many, but that simply is how life is!

As for the whole belief thing, then the whole population of the world could tell me that some gods exist, and still they would be wrong. If you get one billion people to believe 2+2 is 5, the correct answer would still be four!

You see, that's the common mistake of folks who object to the existence of God on scientific grounds. For them there's no god, so they treat it as a pure 0/1 boolean fact, much like 2+2=4. In fact, they project their belief (faith, essentially) on reality, much like believers generally do.

Therefore, basically, the concept of no deity and no judgement of the dead is faith to a no lesser extent than any religious faith. There's no absolute proof for that and it relies on belief. Assigning such qualities as weak will, weak mind, poor intelligence, lack of wisdom etc to those who don't share this view is quite common, but in its nature it doesn't differ from religious fanaticism that this belief's adherents claim to fight against.

Even such seemingly serious and logical people as scientists tend to forget that a commonly shared opinion is not yet a fact, and that there's no proof through belief. Ironically, they're much like priests in their religious and sometimes militant atheism. What do they say? They say: it's truth, you must accept it. Believe us for we say so and we know that we are true. What else do missionaries say? When you have doubts, they will encourage you to put the doubts aside and take their word on things. So what else is faith about?

no belief doesnt make somthing fact

but i do beileive you cant have one without the other

Belief and fact are two very similar things.Without belief something cannot be fact.
for example,a water cannot boil unless it is beleived that boiling is a increase of the temperature of water to 100 degrees C

so hopefully you can see that beleif and fact go hand in hand with each other

Ok then, I only read half the first page, and here is what I believe.

I believe that everyone should stop speculating over their own existance and the existance of everything else in the universe or multiverse or planes or whatever.

I believe that if you believe you exist and everyone that see's and meet's you everyday belives you exist then you exist.

I believe that it is only yourself and the people that you mix with that anybody should care about. As long as you have your health your wealth your happiness and your kinships and friendships that that is all that should matter to you.

I believe that we all have the right and the freedom to belive whatever we want whenever we want.

I believe that you are all dwelling too damn much on things we have no answer or explanation for and not thinking enough about the most important thing to yourself. You, the people your familier with and your good health.

I believe that it is the moment that matters most of all with second place going to the not too distant and distant future, and third, your past and how that it will shape your life.

To finish off I belive that life is too short too dwell overmuch on anything at all, and with what I've lost not long ago I know all about it :(

In closing enjoy life, because one day there WILL be a time when NONE of us exist (I'm speaking in terms of wether or not there is air running through your lungs or not) and by then it's way too late for anyone to do anything. take everything with a measure of seriousness and fun, and try and enjoy life as much as possible :)

And I believe "if you don't like it I believe you can go to hell because you won't be going anywhere else" (heh sorry I couldent resist adding that quote from the matrix ;) )

[ November 30, 2003, 18:52: Message edited by: casey ]

Don't know what your loss is Casey, but you seem to offer soom real insights...but this discussion of faith vs. reality is much like others of it's ilk...it challenges the human mind to think outside the box and expand. It is never a waste of time to question matters of existence and reality...only when those questions and mental excursions occlude ones ability to function in society do they become counterproductive. If I were to employ your rationale, there would never be any study of Theology, Philosophy or Logic...that aside, there is truth in much of what you say.

Grey, you stated some time ago that the hyper-real world existed to you in reality, as your faith is real (paraphrase...having trouble with my comp., and don't want to risk trying to cut and paste). I am on the exact same page as you, although not being Protestant I might take a slightly different slant on the role of Faith in our lives. I agree that this hyper-real world is actually very real, and I have always been able to gain an understanding of anything that seemed inexplicable, and provide an answer "why" from my life of faith. We are both being fitted with the same straight jacket, my friend. I was only trying to speak as genericaly as possible to try to reconcile all sides, and to show that Manus, et al, saw the same hyper-real world that you and I do, only accounted for it differently.

@Drogo...looks like you are combining definition with belief. Water is defined, under the SI, to boil at 100C. If the compound, water, were to experience an elevation of temperature it would undergo a phase change to vapor at some point...whether I believed that point to be 100C, 212F or 373K is irrelevant. I don't think that you have discussed belief as much as "observation of phenomena".

I know I haven't added much new to the fray, but my stand is much the same as it was before. Since science can never quantify the power of faith, faith will never be regarded as a reality, as much as the empirical measurement of temperature would be. If you choose to disregard the effect of faith or belief in you life, you will adopt a view of reality that is devoid of a hyper-reality. You will be left to scratch your head as you stumble over explainations for the inexplicable, as you accept only the physical world. If you employ the "reality" of faith, if you accept a slightly broader understanding of our world, the presence of "the power of belief" will become more apparent, as is represented by orthodox views such as Grey's or New Age views as testified by Manus.

So, to take a long response and make a short answer..."Does belief make something a fact"...the answer is YES, but ONLY if you believe.

@Hacken slash I'm not trying to suggest otherwise I'm trying to say that though it is interesting it never really DOES anything useful for you at least in my expiriance.

I feel that what was, is past and can't be changed, and since what will be is often at best difficult to predict, that to me means that what is, is the most important thing to worry about. All the haves and have not's and all that.

You could just say that I'm a "live the moment" type of guy and depending on what the moment was I'll ask questions later

:yot: Mithrantir, uh...the passage in question (Matthew 8:5-13) says explicitly that the Roman centurion is saved because of his faith in Christ, not his caring for the servant (verse 10). And Christ immediately follows this up (verses 11-12) to say that quite a few would not enter paradise.
I have read the gospels, i have talked with priests and people who believed but serched and they always said the same thing. Because the gospels were written later than the time these things happened, nad were written by people who always perceived things not the same-necessarily- point of view or perception of the incident, the text had some parts, that to be "reformed" or changed or left out, in order to present a more unified image. Furthermore, i speak for my religion (Greek Orthodox) only and the priests i have spoke with, there were more gospels with not "reliable" content. These gospels were excluded from the formal and accepted by the church, as well as some other beliefs and attitudes that were tottaly accepted at the beginning of this cult we call Christianity.
Now this thing blends here too, since the handle of natural and supernatural has been in the hands of religion maybe for too long. And now church has become something like a coorperation and people start not to believe. Not to believe to what though? All of us need something to believe in as human beings. It is the fundmental need to beleive to set a cause, to love, to find an explanation.
Everyone makes his own choice and he lives with it. He goes by a philosophy of life untill this proofs the wrong way to follow.
And then this guy/woman would do what? Think of this like a it was you. ;)

Yes Chris, there have been many many scientific studies with many controlled variables and large test groups that have led to repeatedly conclusive results about these phenomena (psychic abilities especially; precognition, telepathy, and clairvoiyance and clairaudience mostly -most armies in World War II employed psychics to describe enemy bunkers and give intel on bases, if you go read the reports I ask you to explain how else they could have done such things) there have also been extensive tests on telekenesis, such as bending or moving objects, and stopping the hearts of frogs, again, go read the research. I doubt the frogs all simultaneously were scared to death or something.

Besides, I have family members that are psychic, I don't need evidence, I can see it any time I ask them.

As to the healing, no, faith healing is not the type I employ, and it has been tried by others who have been initiated and doubt their abilities, to heal those who are thoroughly skeptical (outright believing that it will not work) and it has, worked I mean. You can feel the heat, and various other physical sensations anyway, so it's not like "I got better anyway", you can feel the effects as they work. It has been tested in other forms as well, on things that will never get better by themselves (even over such a short period of time, I'm talking 10-30 minutes here), such as purifying water, re-charging batteries to full capacity, and other things which can be scientifically verified, if that's what will convince you. If you can come up with another half-cocked explanation for this I'd like to hear it.

I'm not limiting my explanations to these examples, I am just citing a few reports that came to mind to give a couple of general examples. As to the other abilities (and they are many and varied indeed -in no way limited to psi phenomena and healing- if you can think of something, I can find an account from someone who claimed to have done it) they are usually only on personal testimonies. If you choose to believe that all these people throughout history are either liars or just plain ignorant, that is your choice, but how else would you explain the above-mentioned examples?

I know that my tone has been heated, but I think you may one day appreciate how frustrated I have become when people constantly either point to an obvious charlatan, or cite -with nothing beside their own opinion- that there is no evidence or even that there are no un-proved examples of these things, and I, therefore, am a fool. A fool I may be, but on this I do have the broader knowledge, and wider range of experience, and I believe myself to be correct. If one speaks up wiser than myself (and I make no claim to being wise) I will concede their point, but you have obviously not even considered the possiblity that you are wrong, seriously in any case, or else you may have researched these things further. It is true, we all who assert such a position may be mistaken, but we are on no more of a stage of faith than any other, less so, because history, and indeed modern scientific evidence, are on our side, not the other. Even were it that another explanation is the cause, and not my own, there is still a plethora of recorded events which are explained only by my definition, not yours.

Finally, casey, we all think about these things to our own benefit, I can assure you, my own health and indeed, my life, would be no-where near such a high level if I had not given serious thought to such matters. There is little else better to occupy our spare time, in truth, I have a good deal more respect for a man who lives a simple life and gives mindfulness to everything, than one who lives only to enjoy, or whatever else his goal may be- to his, and those around him's, ineviatable detriment. It is a shame to watch the pursuits of some, and these things are no exception- if one thinks but does not live these things, then that one is wasting a good deal of opportunity.

This topic has covered a lot of ground. but back to the original question.
The primary force, creator, god, or whatever would exist no matter what I beleive simply because he/she/it is the primary or beginning source.
The subject now seems to be whether or not the "mind" has powers. ESP is real. I've experienced it.

But please there are other befliefs besides Christianity. More people belive in some sort of supreme being then don't. Does not mean one exists. I can't prove to someone that one exists but they can't prove to me that one desn't. This universe just exploded into being with out any first cause?