Do you believe in God?

@Peter phil,

I believe in me and God MUST be happy for that because the only thing in myself that God has is my humanity!

0 Replies

@Didymos Thomas,

Yes! I believe in God but not in my pathetic (of Pathos) cultural descriptions of God.
To me "God" is a playful phenomenon who creates and then occupies his/her creations. And just like all other playful eternal children, "God" can occassionally get him/her self into a temporary 'jam' (problematic context).
God is omnipotent but can temporarily abandon omnipotence for the sake of challenge and adventure!
God, fortunately, is deaf to all prayers except the prayer, "God, what can I do to help you".
"God" exists, in some measure, in all of us. And.. when we get rid of the 'us' part then all that remains is God.
.

0 Replies

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

Perhaps I've missed the point - does any of what you've said establish that "lack of evidence does not prove nonexistence" is not accurate?

You're right, Didymos Thomas. Lack of evidence does not prove nonexistence. The reason for this is that it is impossible to prove a general empirical negative. Only logical contradiction can do that; for example, I can be completely certain that I will never find a square circle. But if a concept does not contain a logical inconsistency then its existence is a logical possibility.

Logical possibility, however, is a long way from validating belief or from indicating the slightest feasability that the object exists. Only evidence can do that. If we depart from the principle that belief should be in accordance with evidence then we are open to all kinds of superstition - and worse, such as racist slurs and rumours. Just about every incitement to group hatred contains allegations which are deficient in evidence but are logical possibilities, and are believed (by those who accept them) on that basis.

Peter

0 Replies

@Pythagorean,

I believe in God, or some sort of Almighty that guides me, but does not hold my hand and lead the path ahead of me. I think of God as a teacher. She never fully gives me the answer, but He helps me in such a way that a close friend or a close family member would.

I don't view God as the big, giant Humanoid in the sky that constantly points His giant index finger down on people when they do something against what they are told he does not approve of. I view God as a spiritual guide to some form of truth.

Any time I am frustrated and don't see a reason to believe in God, my intuition reminds me that there must be. Even if there is no proof, there must be God. Why is proof so important? If I am not opposing anyone else's beliefs or hurting anyone both physically and mentally, what does it matter? It's there. I can feel it. I can't really describe how or why, but It's there.

1 Reply

@Alveolate,

Welcome to this site, Alveolate.

Alveolate wrote:

Even if there is no proof, there must be God. Why is proof so important? If I am not opposing anyone else's beliefs or hurting anyone both physically and mentally, what does it matter? It's there. I can feel it. I can't really describe how or why, but It's there.

Proof is important, in a fairly basic way, because it enables us to distinguish truth from falsehood. Intuition can supply us with brilliant insights and compelling feelings, but also with false and misleading ideas, usually of a kind that further our interests and prejudices. The problem is how to distinguish one from the other. It is for this reason that it is important to subject our intuitive notions to a process of rational evaluation designed to expose their weaknesses.

In practice, of course, absolute proof is unattainable outside the sphere of logic. When dealing with empirical knowledge we are limited to varying degrees of probability, but the principle of subjecting our ideas to rational criticism remains valid as the only means of separating true statements about the universe from false ones.

Peter

1 Reply

@Peter phil,

Then I've certainly missed your point, Peter. We both agree that lack of evidence for something does not mean that something is not so, nor does lack of evidence provide any reason to think that something is so.

You may not like my example of a man named John from India, and I'm sure better examples exist, but my point remains: Both the strong athiest and strong theist claims are too extreme to be defended adequately.

1 Reply

@Didymos Thomas,

I understand what you are saying, Didymos Thomas. There is a level of thinking at which both the strong theist and the strong atheist position are unsupportable: the level of logical demonstration and proof. However, this is not the level at which empirical knowledge is discussed and judged, because no empirical statement is capable of being proved to the absolute standard of certainty which is present in a logical demonstration.

Logical proof amounts to demonstrating that if the conclusion were untrue, this would involve a contradiction. No empirical statement can ever be proved at this level since it is always possible to conceive of it being otherwise. I firmly believe that witches do not exist and that the sun will rise tomorrow, but neither of these can be logically demonstrated. There is a standard of proof (practical certainty) which falls short of logical demonstration but which is the standard to be applied to empirical knowledge.

The absolute standard of proof which you invoke would invalidate not only the strong theist and atheist positions but also all our basic knowledge of the world we live in. When dealing with empirical knowledge we need to abandon the concept of absolute (logical) proof and focus on assembling and comparing evidence.

Peter

1 Reply

@Peter phil,

I don't think my arguments need an absolute standard of truth, even if my post may have been worded in such a fashion. Sorry for any confusion.

The strong atheist claim is that God does not exist. Supporting this claim encounters a great many problems. What is God? Can you prove the nonexistence of something?
God is not an easy word to define in a universal way. Understandings vary too widely.
As for proving the nonexistence of something, how can this be done empirically? As you point out, such a task, proving somethings nonexistence, is outside the scope of empirical knowledge. What we can do with empirical knowledge is ask ourselves if there is any reason for believing a claim, such as 'God exists'. If no evidence for the claim is available, there is no reason to believe the claim. This leads us to the soft atheist claim, 'there is no evidence that God exists, therefore there is no good reason for me to believe that God exists'. This soft claim, I think, is reasonable.

0 Replies

@Pythagorean,

Just to inject my thought for the day on this topic...

God exists in the way that each individual allows God to exist and in the form of their perception. If God doesn't exist to one man, and exists to another, both are very real and very right, yet very different. God is as individual and as autonomous as we human beings are.

So God's existence is directly related to an individuals belief in a God and they are all different. Like DNA, there are no two God's exactly alike... and there will never be enough empirical evidence to prove otherwise. Proof can also be argued to be an illusion.

1 Reply

@Justin,

Justin wrote:

Just to inject my thought for the day on this topic...

God exists in the way that each individual allows God to exist and in the form of their perception. If God doesn't exist to one man, and exists to another, both are very real and very right, yet very different. God is as individual and as autonomous as we human beings are.

So God's existence is directly related to an individuals belief in a God and they are all different. Like DNA, there are no two God's exactly alike... and there will never be enough empirical evidence to prove otherwise. Proof can also be argued to be an illusion.

Hi Justin, Smile

So if I say alien life forms exist (I can feel them, and I don't know how, but I just know), and you say they do not; then alien life forms do exist, but only in my mind (my subjective perception). Correct?

That makes sense to me because I say God is a concept, like time, or infinity. Either way, its futile to try to proov in any emperical way because there is no evidence, only beliefe and acceptance, or doubt and denial. Value judgement.

Right?

0 Replies

@Pythagorean,

Hi Ogden,

Sure... in essence. It's difficult to compare with Alien life forms because they would be considered life forms and science could measure them.

Basically, if you take an individual person. Let's say we actually take 10 people all from the same Church. They show up on the same day and attend the same services and worship the same God... Correct? Now let's take the same 10 people and interview them individually and ask them what is God? What is God to them?

Even though they attend the same Church and worship the same God, we're going to get 10 answers each uniquely different. God isn't to one man the same as he is to another.

We could do this same thing with 1000 people and although there would be similarities, each God, (experience or perception) would be different. Actually it would be an interesting experiment.

Same goes with the Bible. 10 people can read through the Bible, and interpret the same exact word differently and they do. Do you see my point?

Essentially, we have either formed or deformed an image or perception of God or a God. "My God is different than your God", even though we are under the impression we worship or believe in the exact same God, that's not necessarily true.

How many conscious human being roam the earth?... wouldn't that be somewhat of an accurate count as to how many Gods there are? Each man or woman has a unique understanding or perception of their world, their God, their leaders, their information... and on and on. Although we are connected by a single energy source we are separated by our perceptions of all these things which makes each individual unique.

1 Reply

@Justin,

Interesting, you don't call this monotheism do you? Sounds like infinate number of Gods, or are you saying the variation is in our perception. In that case then I can agree, because there are likewise an infinate number of posible realities as well. I just have a deformed idea of god. If I say God is my toothbrush then I guess it is, if I ascribe it that value.

Phenominalistically, conceptuilizations and precepts are all we have. Even scientific truths are in some respects value based subjective judgments. If I say "RED" you may have a different idea of what red is. I might then describe what wave length the light is. But with God, is there really any sensory input to precieve and make judgment on? Certainly people have sensations, or epiphanys that they say are from God; who can despute the value they ascribe to those feelings. The color red and God are both concepts; thay are only what we believe them to be. So in MHO god is a very real idea (and red is a color). Wink

0 Replies

@Pythagorean,

Truthfully ogden, I don't study any of isms but someday I'll have to look some of this stuff up. Smile

As you've said above, I agree that the variation would be in our perception. We think first and then manifest our thoughts into reality. If we think we believe in a God then we must have some idea of who or what God is. This perception of God, in the mind or thoughts of each person will begin to manifest itself into a realistic entity based on the individual.

For most, if we want to learn about God or get closer to God, what do we do?... Find a church. We Church hop until we find a Church and a community we can plug into and a Church that fills a need we've created within ourselves, (in America anyway). We attend the church and basically become passive recipients of the information pertaining to God that the community or the Pastor delivers. The longer we receive this information and believe it within our minds, the more real it is and the more convincing it seemingly becomes. We do this until we reach the point where our minds are closed to any other ideas of what God or Church is and then we begin to judge other religions because ours is the only right one.

I think we're kind of hi jacking this thread. I'll open a new thread that pertains more to what God is or who God is and it will be interesting because, while there will be things we can agree on, there will still be individualistic ideas and perceptions of God so each response will differ. Not talking about you and I, but everyone who gets involved in the discussion.

Interesting discussions indeed. ....

0 Replies

@Pythagorean,

Just a little comment... I'm not sure that 6 billion different perceptions about God (if He exists) makes 6 billion different Gods, much less 6 billion different God (singular). In my estimation, that would make 6 billion perceptions about God, all of them more or less accurate in any number of ways (unless there really are multiple gods, then it would simply be more complex).

If you ask 1000 different people what Elivs is, you'd probably get 1000 different answers. But we'd still be talking about the same guy, even if our perceptions vary greatly from one to another, including some perceptions that are probably incompatable. Most would say he's dead, but probably a few would say he's alive, or might be alive. Most would say he made good music, some would say he made terrible music. And if you ask some people from other parts of the world, they might not know anything about him at all. But we'd still all be talking about the same man, even if only denying any knowledge of him. I guess asking "Who is Elvis to you?" would still be a valid way of asking for opinions about him, but it would seem a bit weird to me to ask that in a way that suggests that each different answer would create a different Elivs.

So when addressing the subject of God, regardless of the differing opinions on the subject, we are all adressing one reality, just like Elvis. (PS, this is not an attempt at proving God exists... We could change "Elvis" to "Merlin" or "Big Foot" and my conclusion would be the same. Whether they exist or not is not my point here.)

Just a few of my thoughts... I'm not trying to sound harsh, I'm just trying to makes sense of it all for myself.

0 Replies

@Pythagorean,

I hear that. The difference is we know that Elvis was actually a man and we have records to prove that he was a singer. Whereas in the case of God, each man has created his own based on his own perceptions and I believe that each of them is different.

While we my all be addressing one reality, are we? Our realities are actually very different. This is a fine line. It's definitely a topic to be discussed further.

Each of us form our own perception and although we are talking about a "one God", this one God has taken on many forms based on what each man thinks that One God is. Whatever each of us believe and accept into our mind as reality and truth, is what we will reflect into our perceived world. That reflection thus creates our perceived reality and reflects back to us.

It's easy to say, there's only One God. Yet, each man has a different perception of the One thing and thus has created many Gods and many religions. This is what's dividing us today. We're all here in the same world in the same still light that hasn't moved... however our perception differs from one man to the next and some more radical than others.

Here's a thread I stared and we should take this topic of what god is and move it there.

0 Replies

@pokemasterat,

Subatomic (as all) particles, arise from the Omnipresent Ether....

Please refer to the link for a more thorough understanding of the Ether.

Moray articles Index page - KeelyNet 2001

Brett.

0 Replies

@elizabeth phil,

elizabeth wrote:

so I'm taking a philosophy class right now entitled religions of the east. And it got me thinking. An argument for the existance of god is that every group of people since the beginning of time have held a belief in some sort of afterlife, even if in different forms. Well, I'm wondering if there aren't other ideas humans have had since the beginning of time as well. Perhaps the idea that women are subordinate to men? That seems to be historically universal as well, even if it is beginning to change.

People have always been afraid of death, one of the things that makes us different from animals is that we understand that we can't live forever, thus we have always been afraid of death and what comes after this life, and that's still one of the biggest selling points of religion. Everytime I hear a christian say "you're gonna burn in hell!" cause I oppose all religions I know that the only reason they belive is because they are afraid of hell and want to get into heaven..

elizabeth wrote:

One. If there is a god, and he does exist, and has existed. Why not prove it to us? Why not come down and make an appearance? One person I knew said that God isn't like a birthday clown who has to show up every day to each newborn person to prove his existance. And IF Jesus was the son of god, he did show up and make an appearance, and one that has satisfied many people to this day. However, it seems to me that the majority of folk simply believe in whatever afterlife that was provided them as they were brought up. And the phrase "it's a matter of faith" gets thrown around rather luxuriously. But when does time become God's greatest enemy, and faith is no longer a good enough support system? I say that time is God's greatest enemy for the living because the more time that elapses that God is not proven 100%, the more, it seems that he is not real. And for God to be disproven or proven 100% is nearly impossible, except, I think perhaps with time. Think if the world were around for another 2,000 or more years, would and there was still no, well, cameo, from God, would people still believe?

I've asked myself and religious people this several times and still haven't seen a answer that makes sense to me.. I would also like to know why there where millions of years before man was created if there is a god, why where this world filled with dinosaurs without a inteligent creature if there's a god?

elizabeth wrote:

Two. One thing I can not get past about our existence as human beings, is the fact that we have the ability to feel and have feelings. This is also something, that for the most part, seems to escape other creatures. Sure, they are a product of our brains and the innerworkings of our bodies, and it could just be something that came along with evolution for the survival of our species. But why? Couldn't we have the intelligence we already have and survive the same, if not better? If it were not for emotions, we might discard the sick and the elderly, wouldn't we? And we might not be so inclined to find cures for cancer and other illnesses. So, I guess what I'm asking is, are emotions an indicator of something more? We have the capacity to feel such an aray of emotions that impact our everyday and long term decisions. What other purpose might emotions have other than to connect us with something larger than just survival of the species?

Well, don't quite know what you mean? Our feelings are mostly things like satisfied, angry and sad but most animals have these too.. (sad might need a explanation but for example alot of animals will stay and guard a dead member of their pact for some time and there for they show that they are aware of his death and still wants to protect him/her)
Then you might think of 'love' or 'firendship' but (according to me) love is a product of religion when they where trying to make people of the past stop having casual sex with anybody they felt like and make them build a family and so on, my guess is that before recorded history, waaaay back in the past of the early man people lived quite like monkys do now with a alpha-male who protected the females of the pact and had sex with them as he pleased while the other males of the pact followed his command and firendship is a new term for those other men in the pact and if you think about it, all firends groups have a leader..

elizabeth wrote:

I'm new here, so sorry if these things have already been discussed! I would really appreciate some good insights to them however! thanks

I'm not that active here so I don't know, but it shouldn't matter cause everybody in here loves to debate and that's why they are here Wink

0 Replies

@Pythagorean,

My beliefs tend to stack up one on top of the other in relation to God. On a basic level, I believe that I exist and the universe exists. Then I think: "Why and How?" This leads me to believe in at least some force/source/energy/phenomena sparking the universe into existence. Then I think: "what are the conditions surrounding this force that influence it to cause the physical universe to exist?" Since there couldn't have been any physical stimulus BEFORE the physical universe existed, my opinion is that the nature of the stimulus in somewhere in the realm of something supernatural (by this I mean anything outside of or surrounding the natural realm). To me, this realm involves certain driving energies closer to WILL. Who's will? I don't know, but it had to be someone's or something's in my opinion. At the VERY LEAST, I believe that the "something" had a will and/or purpose for creating the universe; otherwise, what conditions would be favorable for a universe to proceed from nothingness?

1 Reply

@ogden,

ogden wrote:

I thought the clockmaker argument was that the orderly complex universe indicates a clockmaker, when I was trying to take it to an existential level.

Matter exists.

Did matter (the universe) just spring from nowhere, is it infinate? What emperical evidence is there that the universe is eternal?

Not trying to be dificult, just want to understand.

This is a good question.

There are multiple scientific hypotheses which attempt to explain the beginning of the universe. Einstein, among others, believed in the "steady state" hypothesis, which states that the universe is eternal and that galaxies "float" about aimlessly. However, mounting evidence supporting the big bang, including the movement of galaxies at an increasing speed away from a set point and the sound left after the "big bang," has forced scientists to start believing in the "big bang."

A hypothesis which was briefly popular afterwards was the oscillating model, which hypothesized that the universe expands and contracts regularly. However, the oscillating model was rejected when evidence seem to point out that the universe is expanding exponentially, not slowing down (which would be necessary for a contraction to eventually occur).

One hypothesis which is gaining some publicity is the multiverse hypothesis, which states that there are multiple universes which can somehow spawn each other. I am not sure as to all the science behind it, as there's a lot of it supporting various versions of the hypothesis, and most of it is quite controversial (but so was the big bang).

Didymos Thomas wrote:

You are right - we cannot prove, as a matter of fact, that God, whatever we consider this to be, does or does not exist. Because we cannot know either way, to say "God does not exist" is nonfalsifiable. Similarly to say "God does exist" is nonfalsifiable. Neither statement can be shown to be accurate.

The strong atheist claim is "God does not exist", which seems to be something that cannot be supported. The only support this strong claim can find is the lack of a proof of God's existence. But the lack of evidence about His existence does not prove his nonexistence.
This is why many atheists have adopted the weaker claim 'there is no evidence that God exists'. To the weak atheist, I can give no argument to force them from their stance - if no evidence of God can be presented, there is no reason to believe in God.

Do you believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

We are somewhat entering into the realm of epistemology here. What constitutes the truth? What constitutes genuine knowledge?

Quite frankly, we cannot know anything for sure. Some of the oldest philosophical arguments, after all, are about solipsism. You cannot know for sure if anything besides the vague concept of your own mind exists.

But we can establish that empiricism (knowledge based on experience) is the best way to know if something is true or not almost for sure. The scientific method is based on empiricism.

In any case, you cannot argue that you cannot disprove something because there is no evidence to disprove it. This is counterintuitive and a logical fallacy. It's called burden of proof. It is not the job of atheists to disprove God, but the job of deists and theists to prove the existence of God.

Why don't you believe in Thor? Ares? Loki? The tooth fairy? Santa Claus? The flying spaghetti monster? Divine purple hippos?

BECAUSE THERE'S NO EVIDENCE FOR THEIR EXISTENCE.

So why believe in the Abrahamic (or any other) God? Why even be a deist?

I'd go so far to say that believing in a God is illogical, irrational, and unreasonable. How likely is it that a super intelligent and complex being has existed without us being able to detect him? Not very. How likely is it that an unimaginably complex being just appeared out of no where and then created the universe? Also not likely, considering we've never seen any other example of this happening (gas/dust clouds existed before planets, simple single-celled organisms existed before complicated ones, etc.).

I'm not even mentioning the standard arguments showing that God is an illogical concept (i.e. omnipotency and omniscience).

I can rationalize someone being an agnostic. I'm an agnostic of sorts myself, since I recognize we cannot lock out the existence of God with complete certainty. But in reality, I'm more of a "practicing" atheist. Why believe in God, Santa Claus, or the Tooth Fairy when there's no evidence for any of them ever existing?

1 Reply

@mean ether,

mean ether wrote:

My beliefs tend to stack up one on top of the other in relation to God. On a basic level, I believe that I exist and the universe exists. Then I think: "Why and How?" This leads me to believe in at least some force/source/energy/phenomena sparking the universe into existence. Then I think: "what are the conditions surrounding this force that influence it to cause the physical universe to exist?" Since there couldn't have been any physical stimulus BEFORE the physical universe existed, my opinion is that the nature of the stimulus in somewhere in the realm of something supernatural (by this I mean anything outside of or surrounding the natural realm). To me, this realm involves certain driving energies closer to WILL. Who's will? I don't know, but it had to be someone's or something's in my opinion. At the VERY LEAST, I believe that the "something" had a will and/or purpose for creating the universe; otherwise, what conditions would be favorable for a universe to proceed from nothingness?

What conditions would be favorable for an impossibly complex being to proceed to nothingness?

It is much more likely that the universe (which is relatively simple) sprung from nothingness.

0 Replies

Do you believe in God?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know