I would think we are nuerobiologically the same as today, simpler doesn't cut for me. In fact they potentially may have been more down to eath, pound for pound more reasonable due to less energy availability leaving less off a luxury to to focus on nonsensical beleifs and instead got out and did the practcal like till the earth. Today we are freed up to be pounded by huge amounts of information that could send us far away from the stability of practical reasoning. That reasoning that evolved the human being to the magnificient creature it is today was not superstition and god reasoning or propaganda of predators and tyrants trying to rule us, it was the physics of the jungle. Comprehension of natures laws, not spiritual , religious or political nonsense.
Indeed. This thread was always going to become about the premise itself since Mind Over Matter will inevitably either directly or indirectly use any arguments based upon it to try to demonstrate the truth of it. @MoM: Just put your cards on the table, in clear view, for once. Give us the "how God exists" arguments that you think demonstrate the truth of the "God must exist" premise. There's no need to direct this thread as if it were a crappy soap opera.
The fact is that some people do have their private reasons for believing in God, and they do believe in God. Should they stop? Should you begin? When does the existence of disagreement necessitate doxastic revision? I don't think this thread, or much of the discussions and debates on "God" have much to do with God as such; rather, they directly or implicitly have to do with issues of the necessity for doxastic revision in the face of disagreement (or at least difference).
Theists generally create threads like this for one of two reasons: 1) they believe they have an obligation to try to lead people to what they consider to be the "truth" and/or 2) they want people to realize that they are right, or at least that their position is justified (and yes, the same could be said for some atheists). MoM is basically evangelizing, and pretty much always is.
I think this is misleading. Give me some reasoning why what you're saying applies, and we'll take it from there.
We know that bigfoot is an organism an ape-like organism at that but claims about the appearance or form of God varies highly. We're discussing the existence of God aren't we?
Gos is not a human, or a "son" of anyone or anything, and not 3, God is one, and we simply, can't picture God, or know God (as scientificly). The laws of the universe are not applied upon God, since according to me beleifs God created those lose for the universe to continue. As for your question how does God exist, as a material question or something like that (I know what question do you mean) ,I completly have no idea. I just beleive that God exists and I feel it, and it makes me feel to continue and not to give up whatever problems that comes in my way. & it's about beleiving, because you can't determinite or know what is God by science.
Crude, but valid. Matthew 21:22 has Jesus saying, "Whatever you ask for in prayer with faith, you will receive." And there are other places in the Bible with similar sentiments from Jesus. The US government has spent over 2 million dollars researching whether prayer helps heart and cancer patients recover more quickly. The studies show no evidence of prayer making a difference.
This doesn't look like a valid dichotomy. We cannot abstractly conceive of an existence of something without simultaneously conceiving (some of) its characteristics.