Why believe in God? (debate, delusion, Buddhist, reincarnate)

[silverworks]

Why believe in God?

Because it makes sense to me, it comforts me, it completes me. Thank you, Lord.

[John13]

Originally Posted by silverworks

Why believe in God?

Because it makes sense to me, it comforts me, it completes me. Thank you, Lord.

It makes no sense to me.

There is a reason why almost all top scientists, who are the smartest people in the world, are atheist. Source: Scientific American.

It's false comfort as you bought into the lies without any real critical thinking. I'm an ex-Christian so I have seen both sides.

I'm for truth, reason, and reality.

[Green Onions]

Originally Posted by silverworks

Why believe in God?

Because it makes sense to me, it comforts me, it completes me. Thank you, Lord.

If I believed in things because I wanted them to be so, I'd believe that my children were immune from harm, that my wife and I would live very long lives and pass away in our sleep together, neither of us knowing that other had passed. I'd believe everyone was good and decent, that life was safe. Of course, such belief would be very dangerous.

Indeed, the only thing that makes it possible to survive life is to scrutinize the world for the truth, and take precautions accordingly, lest one fall victim to violence or disease or poverty or all manner of pitfalls out there awaiting the unwary.

[Vansdad]

Originally Posted by John13

It makes no sense to me.

There is a reason why almost all top scientists, who are the smartest people in the world, are atheist. Source: Scientific American.

It's false comfort as you bought into the lies without any real critical thinking. I'm an ex-Christian so I have seen both sides.

I'm for truth, reason, and reality.

And I'm an ex-agnostic. So it goes both ways.

[Oleg Bach]

Why believe in God? Why not believe in God? - what's the difference? Why does this question mean so much to atheists? God Lord- excuse my language...I hope no one was offended - but----> it seems that atheists are more inclined to preach there belief these days than religious people?

I don't care one bit if an atheist does not believe in God...They are what they are. Wish they would just forget it and keep their belief to themselves.

[benmiller]

a) because you KNOW God exists. you battle with Him all the time.
Knowledge=/=belief. Belief also includes will.

b) because the universe's existence requires God to.

c) because you're not satisfied fully. the only reason you ever think you feel satisfied is because you ignore God and it's easy to be satisfied on all other levels.

d) because continuing living is purposeless.

[Fasaga]

Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill

I am agnostic, and I have come to the position that science does NOT contradict the possibility of a "god", (or "godS", for that matter.)

In fact, I think there is credible argument to be made that science, independent of any religious influence, could come to the conclusion that gods are not only possible, but likely.

We live in a 14 Billion year old universe. We now know that earth-like planets are NOT rare, in that there are likely several million planets that are capable of producing evolution.

If just one of those planets is 1% ahead of us in evolution - either because they started 1% earlier than us, or they were 1% more efficient at evolving, that would put them 140 Million years ahead of us in technology.

Imagine the implications of that. 25 years ago we barely understood DNA. Now, we have decoded the genome. In 25 years we will program DNA like a computer. In 250 years we could be producing synthetic DNA. In 1000 years we could be a non-carbon based life-form. In a Million years, we may have the technology that allows us to transfer between matter and dark matter, as forms of pure energy, with minds supplemented by man-made material, networked in a hive-mind fashion. Who knows? Is time really one dimensional? Or, as some physicist theorize, is there another diminsion that we are only beginning to understand, but will someday master?

We are not well suited to imagine the possibilities of beings that are 140 Million years ahead of us technologically. But given the exponential curves involved, I think they would be at-least indistinguishable from a "god".

My point? Evolution is designed to eventually create an omnipotent being. Given the age of the universe, and the number of planets evolving, it may have already happened - and it could have happened millions of years ago.

Is there such a thing as a multi-verse? If so, could gods have been created there? In 140 Million years, will we have the power and technology to create a universe in the multiverse? Could it have already have happened?

I will sum it up this way:

Evolution doesn't deny the possibility of a god. Instead, it practically guarantees that a god will eventually come into existence.

I've not heard this reasoning before - thanks, I'm going to use it with your permission of course.

[Peregrine]

Originally Posted by BigCityDreamer

Can't we conduct a scientific study to determine whether God answers prayers?

From George Carlin:

So to get around a lot of this, I decided to worship the sun. But, as I said, I don't pray to the sun. You know who I pray to? Joe Pesci. Two reasons: First of all, I think he's a good actor, okay? To me, that counts. Second, he looks like a guy who can get things done. Joe Pesci doesn't f*** around. In fact, Joe Pesci came through on a couple of things that God was having trouble with.

So I've been praying to Joe for about a year now. And I noticed something. I noticed that all the prayers I used to offer to God, and all the prayers I now offer to Joe Pesci, are being answered at about the same 50% rate. Half the time I get what I want, half the time I don't. Same as God, 50-50. Same as the four-leaf clover and the horseshoe, the wishing well and the rabbit's foot, same as the Mojo Man, same as the Voodoo Lady who tells you your fortune by squeezing the goat's testicles, it's all the same: 50-50. So just pick your superstition, sit back, make a wish, and enjoy yourself.

George Carlin On Religion

Originally Posted by Oleg Bach

Wish they would just forget it and keep their belief to themselves.

Hello Pot? This is Kettle...

I do like how you come into this forum and wonder why we are talking about this. Really?

[UsAll]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

Expecting interventions in our physical life is wrong-headed. God gave us Dominion here so you have to look to your fellow humans . . . NOT God. But for the spiritual "state of mind" issues . . . God is available in your consciousness if you are sincere enough to seek Him and sensitive enough to understand what His guidance is. Waiting for physical intervention and bemoaning the lack of it is a waste of time.

Can you provide substantiation and proofs for your statements that there is an entity which you call "God" and that, even if there is, in fact, a supreme transcendent creator being which you call "God", that you personally can demonstrate (not just assert but demonstrate) that you know the mind of this "god"? Can you offer anything more than your professed "belief"?


The fact is that I already know the answers to the above questions, so these questions are just being posed to you rhetorically. The fact is that you have no more KNOWLEDGE (not belief but KNOWLEDGE) of the existence of a god than I or anyone else does . . . and, even if there is, in fact, a supreme transcendent creator being of whatever nature, you have no more KNOWLEDGE about the nature of said "god" than I or anyone else does. You try to speak as though you have AUTHORITY about the existence and then the mind of "God" (i.e., "God thinks this, God thinks that, God wants this, God doesn't want that", etc. etc. etc.). Where exactly does your KNOWLEDGE of this come from? (again, I said KNOWLEDGE, not belief)? You know and I know that all you have to offer up is BELIEF (not epistemologically-derived and established KNOWLEDGE). Are you otherwise proclaiming that you have faculties and powers-of-perception available to you that I don't have? I am of the view that you don't (or likely don't). If you think and assert that you do, then PROVE IT to me and to everyone else. Don't just assert it; PROVE IT. Of course, you know you can't . . . but I could be wrong and I'm always open to REAL genuine EVIDENCE and will say so if I am shown to be wrong and allow myself to be corrected.


In the end, why not just preface whatever you say with "I believe that . . ." and then the rest of the verbiage (e.g., "I believe that there is a God as described in the Holy Bible and my interpretation of this book is that ______________________________. That is what I believe". Just leave it at that and perhaps most people will just say to themselves "Well, it's his belief and he is entitled to it. He doesn't say that he KNOWS it for sure but just that he believes it. OK." But you don't do that. Instead you speak without qualifiers and offer up what you say as though it is established epistemologically-derived KNOWLEDGE . . . and it isn't.


In the end, I am not personally proclaiming that there absolutely is no god or gods. I'm saying "I don't know". I preach the gospel of "I don't know . . . and neither do you." There is one thing that I can proclaim with absolute certitude that I know for sure -- and that is that "I know that I don't know". How's that for intellectual honesty and integrity? Just simply say that you don't know (in an epistemological sense) but just believe (i.e., you invest belief or faith in these ideas but do not epistemologically know them to be true). That is intellectual honesty and is acceptable. I am not, in the end, an enemy of faith. I feel that people are entitled to do with their brains as they deem fit and to subscribe to whatever helps them make sense of and make it through this life (whether I personally agree with the particulars of their views or not). It comes down to the language of explanation that you use for your views. Just call them beliefs (not knowledge) and don't be imperialistic about it with others. I myself, in contrast, am not trying to make the world over to all be agnostic or atheist (i.e., to be a mirror image of me).

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by UsAll

Can you provide substantiation and proofs for your statements that there is an entity which you call "God" and that, even if there is, in fact, a supreme transcendent creator being which you call "God", that you personally can demonstrate (not just assert but demonstrate) that you know the mind of this "god"? Can you offer anything more than your professed "belief"?


The fact is that I already know the answers to the above questions, so these questions are just being posed to you rhetorically. The fact is that you have no more KNOWLEDGE (not belief but KNOWLEDGE) of the existence of a god than I or anyone else does . . . and, even if there is, in fact, a supreme transcendent creator being of whatever nature, you have no more KNOWLEDGE about the nature of said "god" than I or anyone else does. You try to speak as though you have AUTHORITY about the existence and then the mind of "God" (i.e., "God thinks this, God thinks that, God wants this, God doesn't want that", etc. etc. etc.). Where exactly does your KNOWLEDGE of this come from? (again, I said KNOWLEDGE, not belief)? You know and I know that all you have to offer up is BELIEF (not epistemologically-derived and established KNOWLEDGE). Are you otherwise proclaiming that you have faculties and powers-of-perception available to you that I don't have? I am of the view that you don't (or likely don't). If you think and assert that you do, then PROVE IT to me and to everyone else. Don't just assert it; PROVE IT. Of course, you know you can't . . . but I could be wrong and I'm always open to REAL genuine EVIDENCE and will say so if I am shown to be wrong and allow myself to be corrected.


In the end, why not just preface whatever you say with "I believe that . . ." and then the rest of the verbiage (e.g., "I believe that there is a God as described in the Holy Bible and my interpretation of this book is that ______________________________. That is what I believe". Just leave it at that and perhaps most people will just say to themselves "Well, it's his belief and he is entitled to it. He doesn't say that he KNOWS it for sure but just that he believes it. OK." But you don't do that. Instead you speak without qualifiers and offer up what you say as though it is established epistemologically-derived KNOWLEDGE . . . and it isn't.


In the end, I am not personally proclaiming that there absolutely is no god or gods. I'm saying "I don't know". I preach the gospel of "I don't know . . . and neither do you." There is one thing that I can proclaim with absolute certitude that I know for sure -- and that is that "I know that I don't know". How's that for intellectual honesty and integrity? Just simply say that you don't know (in an epistemological sense) but just believe (i.e., you invest belief or faith in these ideas but do not epistemologically know them to be true). That is intellectual honesty and is acceptable. I am not, in the end, an enemy of faith. I feel that people are entitled to do with their brains as they deem fit and to subscribe to whatever helps them make sense of and make it through this life (whether I personally agree with the particulars of their views or not). It comes down to the language of explanation that you use for your views. Just call them beliefs (not knowledge) and don't be imperialistic about it with others. I myself, in contrast, am not trying to make the world over to all be agnostic or atheist (i.e., to be a mirror image of me).

You seem to have given this a lot of thought and invested a great deal of emotional energy into your plea for me to "properly" (in your opinion) characterize my views. You seem new here and I have no idea how many of my 14,000+ posts you have read. I also have a synthesis that is designed to convey the basis for my views. As with many things there are multiple layers to my views. The science underlying them is solid and settled. The hypotheses I present are speculative but fully consistent with the extant science and the philosophical understanding of it. My BELIEFS are just that . . . beliefs based on personal experiences in meditation. They are only a small part . . . but a crucial part in my certainty about the existence of God.

For each of us . . . the things we personally experience and test in our own subjective ways are the MOST real to us . . . if we are honest about it. My acceptance of Christ results from His matching perfectly the attributes of the consciousness I encounter in deep meditation. His story matches the template I perceive in my extensive evaluation and study of the "spiritual fossil record" of our species attempts to understand God. But as BELIEFS . . . they are still more of a faith-based veneer over what is undeniably a more comprehensive and substantive scientific understanding of reality.

SO . . . to follow your advice and expectations would not be easily done. I suggest you read my synthesis and more of my posts if you are still uncertain which aspects of my views I can legitimately claim to KNOW and NOT KNOW . . . and which are mere beliefs.