Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have been assuming that most religious people are religious, believe in God, because they have had some personal experience they believe to be spiritual. Perhaps even some kind of connection with God, but after reading this article...
"Science requires proof, religious belief requires faith"
It occurs to me that if someone requires faith, then they must not have had any such personal experience. If someone has had a personal experience with God, why the need for faith? So is it mostly about faith or that so many people have had true spiritual experiences?
If I had an experience with God, for example, I wouldn't need to have faith he existed. I would know. If I wondered if there was anyone reading this comment, and no one replied, I suppose I could choose to have faith someone was reading it. If someone actually replied, however, I wouldn't need faith. I would know someone read this comment...
I don't believe that science will ever prove God exists because believing and experiencing God is strictly a subjective experience. So yes it requires faith. Religious faith does not require evidence.
I have been assuming that most religious people are religious, believe in God, because they have had some personal experience they believe to be spiritual. Perhaps even some kind of connection with God, but after reading this article...
"Science requires proof, religious belief requires faith"
It occurs to me that if someone requires faith, then they must not have had any such personal experience. If someone has had a personal experience with God, why the need for faith? So is it mostly about faith or that so many people have had true spiritual experiences?
If I had an experience with God, for example, I wouldn't need to have faith he existed. I would know. If I wondered if there was anyone reading this comment, and no one replied, I suppose I could choose to have faith someone was reading it. If someone actually replied, however, I wouldn't need faith. I would know someone read this comment...
Which is it then? Faith or no need for faith?
When I think of people with whom I've had face-to-face discussions about this, I don't recall any of them saying anything that was at all specific about their "personal experience".
Things like, "Going to church just makes me feel good"...that means nothing to me. There are lots of things not at all related to religion that "make me feel good".
Thanking god for a person's spouse recovering from a heart attack or stroke...when the doctors said at the beginning that recovery was likely...doesn't mean much to me.
It's always vague or something that can't be substantiated.
If one goes back and points out demonstrably real () miracles related in the bible, one has to balance that with the common belief among christians that the bible is full of allegories, etc. (something that is said here regularly).
And what about Buddhists who feel special when they go and meditate in front of a Buddha statue?
Or Muslims who pray to Mohammad?
Or Hindus who pray to the elephant god?
I have been assuming that most religious people are religious, believe in God, because they have had some personal experience they believe to be spiritual. Perhaps even some kind of connection with God, but after reading this article...
"Science requires proof, religious belief requires faith"
It occurs to me that if someone requires faith, then they must not have had any such personal experience. If someone has had a personal experience with God, why the need for faith? So is it mostly about faith or that so many people have had true spiritual experiences?
If I had an experience with God, for example, I wouldn't need to have faith he existed. I would know. If I wondered if there was anyone reading this comment, and no one replied, I suppose I could choose to have faith someone was reading it. If someone actually replied, however, I wouldn't need faith. I would know someone read this comment...
Which is it then? Faith or no need for faith?
I am a Christian. I have had spiritual experiences. That said...an unbeliever would probably say something like "That's ridiculous!" "You're psychologically unbalanced!" "There's another explanation for what you experienced." etc. But...as you said, "I know."
But faith is important too. There will be and are, times that I don't understand the why's of what I'm going through, and I can't predict the future. That requires faith and trust. Just like I trust my husband.
I don't believe that science will ever prove God exists because believing and experiencing God is strictly a subjective experience. So yes it requires faith. Religious faith does not require evidence.
From the article...
This is indeed where science and religion differ. Science requires proof, religious belief requires faith. Scientists don't try to prove or disprove God's existence because they know there isn't an experiment that can ever detect God. And if you believe in God, it doesn't matter what scientists discover about the Universe – any cosmos can be thought of as being consistent with God.
Our views of God, physics or anything else ultimately depends on perspective. But let's end with a quotation from a truly authoritative source. No, it isn't the Bible. Nor is it a cosmology textbook. It's from Reaper Man by Terry Pratchett:
"Light thinks it travels faster than anything but it is wrong. No matter how fast light travels, it finds the darkness has always got there first, and is waiting for it."
I am a Christian. I have had spiritual experiences. That said...an unbeliever would probably say something like "That's ridiculous!" "You're psychologically unbalanced!" "There's another explanation for what you experienced." etc. But...as you said, "I know."
But faith is important too. There will be and are, times that I don't understand the why's of what I'm going through, and I can't predict the future. That requires faith and trust. Just like I trust my husband.
I'm an unbeliever of all religions and I've had multiple God experiences. I wouldn't say your experience is ridiculous but I would say that your experience in no way is any evidence for the existence of the Christian God.
When I think of people with whom I've had face-to-face discussions about this, I don't recall any of them saying anything that was at all specific about their "personal experience".
Things like, "Going to church just makes me feel good"...that means nothing to me. There are lots of things not at all related to religion that "make me feel good".
Thanking god for a person's spouse recovering from a heart attack or stroke...when the doctors said at the beginning that recovery was likely...doesn't mean much to me.
It's always vague or something that can't be substantiated.
If one goes back and points out demonstrably real () miracles related in the bible, one has to balance that with the common belief among christians that the bible is full of allegories, etc. (something that is said here regularly).
And what about Buddhists who feel special when they go and meditate in front of a Buddha statue?
Or Muslims who pray to Mohammad?
Or Hindus who pray to the elephant god?
But either way, how many KNOW God exists by way of personal experience and/or how many rely on faith?
I am a Christian. I have had spiritual experiences. That said...an unbeliever would probably say something like "That's ridiculous!" "You're psychologically unbalanced!" "There's another explanation for what you experienced." etc. But...as you said, "I know."
But faith is important too. There will be and are, times that I don't understand the why's of what I'm going through, and I can't predict the future. That requires faith and trust. Just like I trust my husband.
Thanks! Appreciate the comment, but I am referring to KNOWING God exists or relying on faith that God exists. The latter suggests to me a belief in something a religious person really never experienced. What you are describing is a faith in other things, or confusion about what is going on and some faith it will work out in the end. No doubt we all have such faith in a lot of things, but about God's existence. A matter of knowing or a matter of faith?
Have your spiritual experiences have you knowing God exists, or perhaps really not, and you're relying on faith that God actually exists?
I'm an unbeliever of all religions and I've had multiple God experiences. I wouldn't say your experience is ridiculous but I would say that your experience in no way is any evidence for the existence of the Christian God.
If you have had God experiences, multiple no less, why don't you believe in God?
I'm an unbeliever of all religions and I've had multiple God experiences. I wouldn't say your experience is ridiculous but I would say that your experience in no way is any evidence for the existence of the Christian God.
So have I. When that poster said people would say "there are other explanations" that's the category I would fall into.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) miracles related in the bible, one has to balance that with the common belief among christians that the bible is full of allegories, etc. (something that is said here regularly). 
