Why do you believe?

[Cris]

ggazoo,

Time for some discussion.

Now, are any of those irrefutable evidences for God's existence? Of course not. But I think when taken together they are hard to ignore, and are perfectly good grounds for Gods existence.

Only if 1 or more of them had any credibility, and none of them do.

- the existence of a contingent universe

There is no necessity for the existence of the universe to have an explanation neither is it proven that it has not always existed or that it is unique.

- the origin of the universe out of nothing

It is not proven that the universe came from nothing, or that it is unique.

- the fine tuning of the universe for intelligent life

Classic logical fallacy. Intelligent life is a result of the universe not the reverse. Had the universe been different then either intelligent life would not have occurred or it would have taken a different form.

- our intrinsic moral values

This is not a case for a god but a strong case for the development of evolutionary survival instincts.

- the resurrection and radical claims of Jesus

There is as yet no reliable evidence that such a character existed let alone that a ressurection actually occurred.

- and the immediate personal experience of God Himself through my own life experiences

Which I suspect you would be very hard pressed to distinguish from delusion or imaginative concepts introducted through religious indoctrination or gullibility.

 

[Thoreau]

Yeah, I'll be staying out of that debate lol

 

[answers]

I'm not sure it's worth debating. Christians believe that donkeys can talk, snakes can talk, and virgins can get pregnant.

Logic does not apply to Christian belief.

Which is why I try not to debate with Christians any more. It's all just a big waste of time.

 

[Emil]

Since there is yet no confirmation of any supernatural claim it makes no sense to assert that such things are possible, or are indeed not possible.

A naturalistic worldview is the only meaningful and rational position until or if we see something else, and that ALL religious perspectives can only be regarded as speculative at best for now.

Even within a naturalistic framework there are still a vast array of variables in the universe that we do not understand or likely have yet to discover, that assertions of certainty should also be considered questionable.

I believe there is yet much to learn about life and the universe(s) in which we live and it seems very premature and naive at this point to express certainties from our vantage point of a minuscule spec of dust in a vast galaxy that is itself such a tiny spec in a vast ocean of trillions more galaxies.

I am absolutely agree.I can not add anything.

 

[edenocp]

Aside from number 3,5, and maybe the first, these are the worst reasons I have seen to believe in a god. I feel bad for you because you can be deceived so easily.

boy it really takes a lot to make you an athiest.
tongues are utterly perfect when one is led into it properly -excuse the pun.
If you ever heard of the Kabbalah you would know the perfection of inspired words/numbers.

 

[edenocp]

​

biggles,



light is the cause, matter is the effect

listening to the biproduct of light rather than to light itself is a mistake

 

[OriginalBiggles]

I believe in God because:

1. I am proud, defiant and ambitious: I absolutely resent to think that what fire and brimstone Christians and atheists say about God should be the final truth about God.

2. The alternative to believing in God is to believe there is no God and thus to believe that first there was nothing, then this nothing somehow, for no reason at all, exploded into something, which then slowly, again for no reason, became dinosaurs. Thinking like this makes no sense to me.

3. Because to believe there is no God is to believe that life is ultimately all for nothing. Nobody can really believe this for a long time, and nihilists eventually get bored too.

1. Atheists ask that you provide compelling evidence of your god. The theist inability to so provide during 2000 years of mighty endeavour is compelling evidence that you are self-deluded and rejoice in that condition.

2. Thinking like this makes no sense to anyone, so why do you believe your stupid scenario is true? It is a perversion of scientific reality. If belief in your god requires that you think like this then you give signal expression to Galileo's observation; "I do not feel obliged to believe that the same god who gave man sense, reason and intellect would expect that he should forgo their use."
Even 500 years ago there were great minds who think you are a fool.

3. So your pompous personal incredulity is a governing law of nature? Only a monumental theistic self-importance brings one to the belief that the existence or non-existence of human life is of any significance in our ancient and vast Universe. You fail to recognise a deep and abiding terror of being alone in a Cosmos that you strongly suspect doesn't give a damn for whether you live or die. Clutching desperately to such self-delusion demonstrates a cowardice that insults rational humankind.


If you find comfort in perverting and contriving scientific reality and imply ignorance to those who place ultimate confidence therein in order to fit your own chosen brand of ignorance, then you should be prepared to accept counter-criticism in like manner.

Biggles, Prime

 

[OriginalBiggles]

​

biggles,

light is the cause, matter is the effect

listening to the biproduct of light rather than to light itself is a mistake

Edenocp,

If you are responding to my post #16 please explain how your post above is relevant.

Then I would appreciate a clarification of what you actually mean.........

Light is the cause, matter is the effect...........?

listening to the biproduct of light rather than to light itself is a mistake

Listening to matter is a mistake but listening to light is OK?

Listening to the effect is a mistake but listening to the cause is OK as well?


Biggles, Prime

 

[rye]

I've never really believed in God actually, even when I was younger I was HIGHLY skeptical. It just seems that God was man-made, to be some sort of a coping mechanism, something to turn to when everything gets really shitty. Even before Christianity came about, the ancient Gods were created in order to try to understand the world and to offer some sort of explanation as to why natural disasters came about (Gods were angry), or why harvests seem to be great some years and horrible the next (because the proper sacrifices were made).

But now that we've been able to explain so much of this, more people have placed their faith in science rather then religion. Not believing in God doesn't mean that someone is a 'non-believer' or comepletely without faith. In a way we have faith that God doesn't exist, or we have faith in scientific theories, like the Big Bang theory, which can't be completely justified in hard evidence either.

And if there is a higher being, who has seemingly been completely unreachable and inactive for ages, who's to say that we would see him in death? Perhaps even in death we'll never know what it is that controls everything, assuming we even have an afterlife.

 

[Thoreau]

1. Atheists ask that you provide compelling evidence of your god. The theist inability to so provide during 2000 years of mighty endeavour is compelling evidence that you are self-deluded and rejoice in that condition.

Keep in mind that people have not been able to prove that a god does not exist either. That's not to say that there is a god, but the possibility nevertheless still exists.

 

[Cris]

MZ...,

Keep in mind that people have not been able to prove that a god does not exist either.

Things that do not exist can exert no influence on human life, and hence the subject of non-existence is quite pointless and irrelevant. On the other hand those who assert that something that does not exist does exist and attempt to use those claims to exert influence on human life, are quite dangerous, and that issue is very relevant and vital.

That's not to say that there is a god, but the possibility nevertheless still exists.

That is a false perspective. For example, within the framework of a six sided dice I can assert that a seventh value is impossible, or in other words all possibilities are known. Unfortunately the much wider scope of the universe does not easily allow us to see all possibilities, but that does not allow us to assume that anything we can imagine is a valid possibility. We simply do not know whether gods are possible or not.

 

[jayleew]

On the other hand those who assert that something that does not exist does exist and attempt to use those claims to exert influence on human life, are quite dangerous, and that issue is very relevant and vital.

The only dangerous person is a prideful and ignorant person. Belief and assertion of the existence of something that does not exist to influence people is not dangerous in itself. It is when the belief does not give way to reason is when it is dangerous. It is one thing to believe one can fly and convince other people it is possible. It is another thing to push someone off a cliff saying, "Of course you can fly, why do you question it?" My point is that theism or religion is not dangerous, it takes a certain person that makes it dangerous.

That is a false perspective. For example, within the framework of a six sided dice I can assert that a seventh value is impossible, or in other words all possibilities are known. Unfortunately the much wider scope of the universe does not easily allow us to see all possibilities, but that does not allow us to assume that anything we can imagine is a valid possibility. We simply do not know whether gods are possible or not.

"We simply do not know whether gods are possible or not" is the same as saying "That's not to say that there is a god, but the possibility nevertheless still exists."

If you don't know something is possible or not, you can't assume the possibility doesn't exist.

What are you debating and to what end?

 

[Cris]

Jayleew,

"We simply do not know whether gods are possible or not" is the same as saying "That's not to say that there is a god, but the possibility nevertheless still exists."

No. You cannot say in one instance that we do not know if it is possible and then say the possibility exists. These statements are in conflict.

If you don't know something is possible or not, you can't assume the possibility doesn't exist.

Or that it is possible at all, which was my point.

 

[Lori_7]

i believe in god because of experiences i've had, and the meaning derived from them. it was ultimately the only logical conclusion i could make.

 

[OriginalBiggles]

Keep in mind that people have not been able to prove that a god does not exist either. That's not to say that there is a god, but the possibility nevertheless still exists.

And by the same token, using your reasoning, the Tooth Fairy, a much more contemporary creation, cannot be proven to not exist either but the possibility nevertheless still exists.

A god has the same likelihood of existing.

The scientific method operates on the basis that knowledge is always incomplete. This principle is in conflict with theological thinking. Gould and Eldredge recognised this and created the concept of the Non-Overlapping Magisterium or NOMA.

Bearing this in mind, you'll understand why I require "compelling evidence" and not "proof". Holding to the scientific method, therefore, one requires only compelling evidence or a complete absence of scientific evidence in order to be convinced that gods do not exist.

The proof you require in science exists only in mathematics and formal logic. The supernatural exists in a magisterium where these concepts are completely absent.

The necessity of "proving" a negative is outside the noma of science for science has no need nor remit to venture outside the natural material noma.

Were gods to venture into the noma of science they would be stripped of all properties that god-believers had vested them with and thusly would no longer be gods. This conundrum has beseiged the most penetrating of theological deliberations for millennia. In clamouring for proof of non-existence, they evade the a priori requirement of giving unequivocal definition of what their god comprises.

Given that theists cannot and will not do this absolves science of any responsibility. To propose that science is somehow at fault here is simplistic and ingenuous.

Theists assert something whose existence depends absolutely on that something having the property of unprovability in the positive and the negative and in addition is defined as being beyond the only means by which compelling evidence can be gathered.

Under such conditions, "proving" the positive or the negative is a demand based firmly in unreason and smug fantasy, as well as being simplistic and ingenuous.

Unless there is compelling evidence presented to support the existence of gods [which god-believers will not and cannot do] science and the rational human intellect will take no account of such assertion of gods, their existence being equivalent to that of a bunyip, King Kong, an elephant standing on the back of a turtle and a snake that speaks Aramaic .

Biggles, Prime

 

[answers]

Lori can you please give examples of your experiences. If you don't want them to be criticized then feel free to msg me them if you don't mind.

Thanks.

 

[Lori_7]

Lori can you please give examples of your experiences. If you don't want them to be criticized then feel free to msg me them if you don't mind.

Thanks.

i've heard the voice of god, in a very conversational way at times.

sometimes it's more like an impression on my mind. and a lot of those impressions have been in regards to biblical things.

i've had recurring dreams, lucid dreams, and visions that have been prophetic in a more personal way.

i've been led by experience to pray, and have seen those prayers open doors, that would make me say "be careful what you ask for". (tongue in cheek)

then there are events and circumstances that you could attempt to explain away by calling them coincidences, but when you take an honest look at them, and at the meaning in them, and the odds...they're not coincidences.

then about 5 years ago, i had some ultra-trippy shit happen to me, that involved intense and prolonged spiritual interactions. one of which was channeling. i was aware that something that wasn't used to being in a body, took over my body, to write a poem of all things, and apparently that poem helped people. people that i don't know.

 

[answers]

Can you please give examples of the 'coincidences' you mentioned.

And can you explain the chanelling thing more? What do you mean by it? I've only heard the term used before to describe chanelling another spirit. Are you saying you were possessed?

And when you heard god speak to you, was it audible, or was it in your head?

Thanks

 

[Lori_7]

Can you please give examples of the 'coincidences' you mentioned.

it could be a chance meeting, something someone says to you, a song on the radio, a suggestion, a rainbow. when you find meaning in these things, when no meaning is implied or given by the circumstance itself.

for example, shortly after my husband and i met we took a vacation together. it was the second time we had met in person, and while i was already committed to him in my heart, we were not engaged yet. while we were driving to canada, we saw several fireworks displays in various places, and i thought it was strange. it wasn't a holiday. while we were there, we saw a rainbow every day. one day we saw two rainbows side by side. i had never seen that before. and while crossing a bridge on the way home, a rainbow actually appeared to end right in front of our car, and following us all the way across the bridge, which was really cool. i know rainbows and fireworks happen all the time and their occurrence doesn't have anything to do with me, but on that trip, they meant something to me, like a sign.

speaking of which, have you seen the movie "signs"? it's like that. when things happen that are seemingly random, but then end up being meaningful, often in hindsight.

And can you explain the chanelling thing more? What do you mean by it? I've only heard the term used before to describe chanelling another spirit. Are you saying you were possessed?

it was indicated to me, that something that was not used to having a physical body, was using mine, to put a pen to paper and compose something. i recall all of it, and was rather amazed by it. i was allowing it to happen. it wasn't like i'd lost all control of my body. but i'm not a writer. i had no intentions of writing. especially poetry. poetry had always frustrated me and i didn't really have any appreciation for it, and definitely no inclination to try to compose it. but that's the thing...i didn't try...it just came out. after i had written the first poem, i was aware that i wasn't the author. it was startling and exciting. when i was writing the second poem, there were physical sensations and manifestations that i was able to observe, that led me to believe i was channeling a spirit. i actually think that these manifestations were for my benefit, so i would have some understanding of what was happening to me.

And when you heard god speak to you, was it audible, or was it in your head?

Thanks

in my head.

 

[answers]

Lori do you have any sort of scientific background? Study at college or anything like that?

It just seems to me that you don't critically evaluate those things that have happened.