Why I believe in God?

I am a christian. Someone once asked me: What if you're wrong...what if you're living a lie?

I thought...and this is my conclusion: So what if I am? By my friends way of thinking...we could ALL be living a lie. At least mine is an "honest" lie...a lie that compells me to do good and fills me with hope. A lie that makes me to think of others before myself. A lie that, I think, can make me a better person.

I believe in God, because of the many things he has done in my life...the answered prayers, his mercy when i deserved malice. You know, I can't really explain it...but thats why its called faith. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NovemberGuest

I am a christian. Someone once asked me: What if you're wrong...what if you're living a lie?

I thought...and this is my conclusion: So what if I am? By my friends way of thinking...we could ALL be living a lie. At least mine is an "honest" lie...a lie that compells me to do good and fills me with hope. A lie that makes me to think of others before myself. A lie that, I think, can make me a better person.

I believe in God, because of the many things he has done in my life...the answered prayers, his mercy when i deserved malice. You know, I can't really explain it...but thats why its called faith. :)

---

Your faith does not mean you live a lie. even if I can quite easily reduce and tell you what faith is, what happens in the brain, what tests show, why empirical evidence shows it as fallacy, or anything and everything, "who can we possibly thank for all the beauty?" - I'd be a beast for doing so, and no man should on these forums or here on this thread. Faith, it seems, keeps you happy and keeps your mind at ease on your journey from A to B - and that is the case with many a person. To me, religion or faith is a guilt trip for my human nature - i feel just as good acting as I was born to act (animal) as you do being humble and selfless (buddha or christ). And good. so what of it?
As a less bluntly and cruel atheist than most, i would say your beliefs are not wrong. They are in fact correct! God, Santa, whatever, its all true - CONCEPTUALLY, in belief, in the mind. If you chose to act from it, then so be it - and whoever judged you for it is wasting their time in my opinion, and were pretty cruel too.
The moment faith becomes a lie is when it becomes applied through religion. when it seems to think some external force can implement change in the world - it is not a deity, but the processes of communal trance. that is where the evidence stops, where the logic and reason stop. No theist can prove their deity's existence, only that they believe. my conclusion is that God exists in concept alone. To me God is consequentially fabrication, to a theist God is true and now lets buy some drinks and watch the sport.

Never let an atheist take your faith from you. it is yours to grow out of on your own terms, or live with to make ya happy. peace.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Judas130

Your faith does not mean you live a lie. even if I can quite easily reduce and tell you what faith is, what happens in the brain, what tests show, why empirical evidence shows it as fallacy, or anything and everything, "who can we possibly thank for all the beauty?" - I'd be a beast for doing so, and no man should on these forums or here on this thread. Faith, it seems, keeps you happy and keeps your mind at ease on your journey from A to B - and that is the case with many a person. To me, religion or faith is a guilt trip for my human nature - i feel just as good acting as I was born to act (animal) as you do being humble and selfless (buddha or christ). And good. so what of it?
As a less bluntly and cruel atheist than most, i would say your beliefs are not wrong. They are in fact correct! God, Santa, whatever, its all true - CONCEPTUALLY, in belief, in the mind. If you chose to act from it, then so be it - and whoever judged you for it is wasting their time in my opinion, and were pretty cruel too.
The moment faith becomes a lie is when it becomes applied through religion. when it seems to think some external force can implement change in the world - it is not a deity, but the processes of communal trance. that is where the evidence stops, where the logic and reason stop. No theist can prove their deity's existence, only that they believe. my conclusion is that God exists in concept alone. To me God is consequentially fabrication, to a theist God is true and now lets buy some drinks and watch the sport.

Never let an atheist take your faith from you. it is yours to grow out of on your own terms, or live with to make ya happy. peace.

---

And you, also, should never give up searching. :) And don't act like an animal. :p Most of the time. :)

I really like the way you put it Judas130, and I agree for the most part.

However, as much as I wish it were true, I cannot say the the purpose of my faith is to me "happy". Yes, I have my happy moments...peace...but its not all nice. Anyone who has been persecuted for their faith would tell you that...personally, I have not. But even so, when I do something that, according to christianity, is a sin, I feel guitly (and maybe this is going back to your "religion or faith is a guilt trip for my human nature ") and I need to apologize. So yes...my faith gives me peace, but not necessarily happiness.

This is what you said that I really like:

Quote:

---

No theist can prove their deity's existence, only that they believe.

---

That is exactly what faith consists of. To prove it would turn it into something else...

Tennyson puts it better than I can:

Quote:

---

Strong son of God, immortal love,
Whom we, that have not seen thy face,
By faith, and faith alone, embrace,
Believing what we cannot prove.
-In Memoriam A.H.H.

---

Hebrews 11:1...Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Thanks for your insightful reply, and peace to you, too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lichtrausch

I have nothing against spirituality. It's monotheistic religions and their believers who indoctrinate their children with dogmas which encourage blind faith and discourage questioning, curiosity, and rational thinking that I am against.

When I said no one knows "the truth", I was referring to the claim by most religions that they have the absolute truth. That is to say, they know the answer to why the universe was created, who created it, what the meaning of mankind's existence is and similar questions.

In short, spirituality and thinking are good, indoctrination and blind faith are bad. I think we can agree on that, no?

---

Why shouldn't a religion claim a truth? Science does so all the time - and much of that truth is speculative in nature. How do YOU know that a certain religion doesn't have the truth? How can you know?

We can only agree if our definitions of your terms agree; what you call "spirituality" or "thinking" or "indoctrination" or "blind faith" may not be what I perceive them to be at all. I'd have to hear your definitions first.

Faith should always be private and a free choice of the individual to follow or not. How many times have we heard the sermon, Gods ways are unknowable , immediately followed by , this is what God wants you to do? Athiesm and agnosticism are intellectually reasonable and morally defensible. If we are wrong, yet at the same time have lived a decent life, then I am sure a God of love would be forgiving. I agree that science can never provide all the answers, but blind faith based on a 4000 year old religious text, written by fallable humans is not the answer either. Tennyson also wrote about ' honest doubt ' in his elegy on death. Is humanity a result of a big bang, or some sort of beneficial intelligent design, who knows? No one should pretend to certainty, because that is the worst kind of falsehood.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jocky

Faith should always be private and a free choice of the individual to follow or not. How many times have we heard the sermon, Gods ways are unknowable , immediately followed by , this is what God wants you to do? Athiesm and agnosticism are intellectualy reasonable and morally defensible. If we are wrong, yet at the same time have lived a decent life, then I am sure a God of love would be forgiving. I agree that science can never provide all the answers, but blind faith based on a 4000 year old religious text, written by fallible humans is not the answer either. Tennyson also wrote about ' honest doubt ' in his elegy on death. Is humanity a result of a big bang, or some sort of beneficiant intelligent design, who knows? No one should pretend to certainty, because that is the worst kind of falsehood.

---

Well said jocky.

:):)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Comedian

Well said jocky.

---

Comedian, I wasnt sure if you were still alive after the woodpile, or maybe skulking out in the backwoods, but its great to hear from you. I thought I would never be spotted in a serious discussion, but there you go. :)

Jocky, what you wrote sums up what I've been trying to say about religion in the last three years so perfectly and to the point that I actually copied it and e-mailed it to myself to make sure that I never lose it. You are MUCH more eloquent than I am.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf

Jocky, what you wrote sums up what I've been trying to say about religion in the last three years so perfectly and to the point that I actually copied it and e-mailed it to myself to make sure that I never lose it. You are MUCH more eloquent than I am.

---

That is one of the nicest things anyone has ever said to me, however if you check out some of the rubbish I talk on the Blokes thread you may change your opinion. :)

I believe in God because I believe in everything Emerson wrote. Emerson held that all of us must accept fate, which is beyond our power to alter, and that this fate understands itself. At one time I was so obssessed with fortune telling that I actually visited a fortune teller once for about ten days to learn some of the hidden secrets about my fate and some of the things that may happen in the near future. That fortune teller reads palms. At the moment he reads your palm, he delves into your heart and discerns what you are thinking and feeling. I believe there is a part of the universe that has been occult and inexplicable throughout the past centuries, and this mysterious part may give evidence to the existence of God.

But palmists are kind of making predictions that are not done with occult powers and they are not occultists in point. They have certain ideas that work for them. It is generalization and that works.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jocky

Faith should always be private and a free choice of the individual to follow or not. How many times have we heard the sermon, Gods ways are unknowable , immediately followed by , this is what God wants you to do? Athiesm and agnosticism are intellectually reasonable and morally defensible. If we are wrong, yet at the same time have lived a decent life, then I am sure a God of love would be forgiving. I agree that science can never provide all the answers, but blind faith based on a 4000 year old religious text, written by fallable humans is not the answer either. Tennyson also wrote about ' honest doubt ' in his elegy on death. Is humanity a result of a big bang, or some sort of beneficial intelligent design, who knows? No one should pretend to certainty, because that is the worst kind of falsehood.

---

I always advocate that faith should be totally a private thing and religions should never be politicized and today the basic problem with religion is with the idea of fundamentalism and fundamentalists always try to politicize religions and used it as tools for propagating their ideas and they take advantages out of this.

My belief in God is rooted in logic. I believe that the existence of a created object implies the existence of a creator.
If you saw a beautiful chair you would automatically assume that someone created it, rather than assuming that it was created by simple random chance, since human logic states that that is impossible. Since the uniiverse is so much more complex doesnt it follow that someone created that?

In believing this I am simply following the greatest philosophers and scientists of all time who believed in god in some form or another; Aristotle, Plato, Socrates, Einstein, Newton, St Augustine and St Thomas Aquinas to mention a few.

It is really hard not to believe in point of fact; even if empirical science holds the contrary view, given the vastness and complexity of the world we live it is in reality reasonable that we imagine there is a creator of everything and this is our comfort zone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mayneverhave

The simple reason that you were brought up with the belief in God does not justify that belief. The belief is not innate - children are born atheists - you acquire the belief from your role models, or whoever instilled that belief in you.



Yes but we have tangible, empirical reasoning for scientific theory. The universe exists, given that we live in it, and the effects of atoms can be seen chemically. God, on the other hand, has no real tangible manifestation. There is no reason why we should belief such a thing exists. Scientists did not come up with the big bang theory for kicks, they are trying to explain the creation of the universe. There would be no reason to come up with a theory if the universe did not exist.

What empirical data do we have that would require the existence of a god?

---

"Children are born atheist" - this doesn't make sense.They are not atheists neither believers.
I am 99% atheist,but I don't believe in science.I mean...the scientists are going forward and back in one hundred different ways in slow motion,compaired with the complexity of Nature they would explain.They are working by curiosity in a field full of lacunas.We can doubt Darwin and carbon-14 dating being atheists.
You see - was it the supposed first images of atoms? - it is written "I.B.M."
and disagree on how the scientists thought atoms were.Suspect.
At less the LHC is not too expensive.

Children are born atheists. They have no understanding of monotheism. They are more like primitive or prototype scientists, always questioning. give a child enough freedom to question and they will rarely become religious believers

This is true. Religion is taught.

I mean, I have been both an Atheist and someone who believes in a God. Neither one is wrong, but, as Leo says in "stones from the river", the important thing is just to be kind.

Just on a side note, I feel as though often people see science and faith at war with each other. This has never been, and probably never will be the case. Furthermore, science isn't one force. A 3 year old who studies the bugs in his backyard is technically a "scientist", which is name for someone who discovers information, usually just for the sake of finding things out. Therefore, are scientists that different from philosophers of religion? They have the same goal, just different, non-conflicting methods.

It remains a puzzle to me as to which point in our lives we decided to believe or not to believe. Or did we ever?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by atiguhya padma

Children are born atheists. They have no understanding of monotheism. They are more like primitive or prototype scientists, always questioning. give a child enough freedom to question and they will rarely become religious believers

---

Some problems with this post:
1. Is there anything beyond your opinion to substantiate your claim that children are "born atheists"? Since the majority of atheists - it would seem - tend to be naturalists and claim empiricism as the basis of reality and understanding, I would think you'd have more than just your opinion (since we Christians get dinged for our opinions about the nature of reality that can't be scientifically proven).
2. According to the Bible, all men are born with an innate knowledge of their Creator (sorry - don't have a specific text handy - apologies for that); unfortunately, sin clouds that knowledge and that is why we teach our children about God and why we read the Bible - so that that innate encoding makes more sense.
3. The idea that children left to simply question will not believe is fallacious for a number of reasons; first, a childish view of the world would seem to indicate that the sun revolves around the earth and that at night it sinks into the ocean (if you live on the west coast). Second, depending upon whom the child questions, the answers will be different (and often equally subjective). If you teach a child that the world possesses only a material existence, then yes - the child will grow up unbelieving. If you teach the child that matter is not the full frame of reality, well, the outcome might be a bit different.
4. Many of the questions asked by children and adults alike are unanswerable by science or naturalism.

Atheism is not a "natural" condition - it is a chosen condition. The greatest strivings of philosophers, artists, musicians and writers have always been to seek after the greater purposes of life, to fathom the mysteries of existence, to identify that restless longing of the heart. All those things point to something larger than ourselves, prompting us to find that thing which lies outside of us. If atheism were "natural" - well, I doubt that history would be littered with the overhwhelming evidence that all people have believed in something larger than themselves through which they and the universe take a greater, more profound meaning.

This question whether God exists or whether children were atheists by birth is really a classical question and of course great treatises have been written on this debate and are still being written persistently. I do not think children are innately atheists. Theisms and atheisms are certain philosophical notions and children are not philosophers. Indeed they are questioners. The idea of God came to us by thinking evolutionarily from time immemorial and I do not surmise that children do not keep on thinking. They wonder at what they observe around them, the beauty and immensity of nature. Maybe they do not think the way we do after reading books of theologies that conditioned us to think about Biblical or Islamic or Hindu Gods and goddesses. If they cannot think up mythological ideas of Gods with certain sizes, faces and capacities but nevertheless they may think there must be some grand intelligence or something that integrates all animate and inanimate beings. For, man has the capacity for thinking and children think and are more imaginative than adults and this presupposes the fact that Children are atheists. We kind rational fools hypothesize ideas of theism and atheism woven out of what we have learned from others or books. People who choose to call themselves atheists, fashioning ideas of atheism out of swanky predisposition think they are rationalists, empiricists, scientists and those who believe in God are dogmatists or irrational. But the fact is both theists or atheists or the whole gangs of scientists, philosophers cannot conclusively say that God exists or does not in point of fact. They simply theorize ideas and those so called atheists by hinging on those theorized ideas make a series of conjectures and confuse the common man. I am not siding with both, theists and atheists biasedly or fixedly with sets of ideas or theorists. People may brand me as unprincipled or something like that. I am open to ideas, to both theists and atheists and love to discuss as an unprejudiced individual with no preconceived notions of things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

Many of the questions asked by children and adults alike are unanswerable by science or naturalism.

---

And how, pray tell, does supernaturalism answer the profound questions of our existence? Faith merely makes people trade honest doubt for the most hollow certainty. Religion short-circuits the process of inquiry by making people repeat empty affirmations as many times as it takes to convince them that they're answers to the big questions.

Regards,

Istvan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

It's not that they cannot explain god scientifically. It is that there is no proof of god, and plenty of proof against god.

That's rhetoric for they are too afraid to change their minds, when faced with overwhelming evidence against god.

I can respect religion to an extent, but this "I believe because it makes me who I am, and makes me comfortable," is pure rhetoric. That isn't a reason to believe in something, it just shows the inner cowardice of the believer.

---

The fact that you don't feel God does not alter the fact that soembody else does feel Him. You cannot deny everything you don't understand or never perceive as non-existent because it is a bizzar world full of wonders that may shock people into idiots at any moment. Can you possibly have seen all events, felt all the unknown, or understood all the miraculous in the universe? NO. Then try to be modest.
Evidence tells nothing. It only offers a certain amount of proof to anything you wish to know, but it can escape the real truth. Who knows? You may have no evidence to prove that you are not lying when you are actually teling the truth, but you may have a great deal of evidence to prove what you're saying when you are in fact telling sheer lies.
Please respect the wonder of the world, some of which may not have reached you yet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Babbalanja

And how, pray tell, does supernaturalism answer the profound questions of our existence? Faith merely makes people trade honest doubt for the most hollow certainty. Religion short-circuits the process of inquiry by making people repeat empty affirmations as many times as it takes to convince them that they're answers to the big questions.

Regards,

Istvan

---

A belief in God supplies us with answers that science cannot - questions concerning our origins, our human nature, the problem of sin, the existence of morality and the purpose of human life. Science dismisses all of these things into mere random forces - which drains all thought, all words, all actions of meaning.

The certainty is only "hollow" if God isn't real. Science can neither confirm or deny God's existence - so it's dismissal of Him is premature.

The affirmations are only empty if God isn't real. If He isn't real - neither you nor I will ever know; if He is real - you and I will BOTH know.

I don't get where being a believer implies a lack of intelligence, critical thinking ability and logic. Science cannot answer all questions; that many people choose to accept its hypotheses and theories as fact simply suggests that many people are afraid of the unknown; I prefer to say the jury is still out on a number of important matters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

A belief in God supplies us with answers that science cannot - questions concerning our origins, our human nature, the problem of sin, the existence of morality and the purpose of human life. Science dismisses all of these things into mere random forces - which drains all thought, all words, all actions of meaning.

---

You didn't answer my question. What answers does belief provide? At least scientific research has given us provisionally reliable information on our real origins and the evolutionary basis of much of our behavior. It seems that credulity merely allows the believer to think whatever he wants.

Quote:

---

I don't get where being a believer implies a lack of intelligence, critical thinking ability and logic. Science cannot answer all questions; that many people choose to accept its hypotheses and theories as fact simply suggests that many people are afraid of the unknown; I prefer to say the jury is still out on a number of important matters.

---

But the religious approach to the unknown is actually less honest and more fearful of the unknown than the scientific approach. The religious believer has certainty because he already affirms the validity of the Bible, and considers it a virtue to keep believing regardless of new information. The empirical researcher only has statistical confidence in his beliefs, because he realizes that new information could change or refute what he currently believes. Which approach is actually more accepting and curious about the unknown?

You say science can't answer all questions, and I agree. But as I said before, religion only pretends to answer them.

Regards,

Istvan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Babbalanja

You didn't answer my question. What answers does belief provide? At least scientific research has given us provisionally reliable information on our real origins and the evolutionary basis of much of our behavior. It seems that credulity merely allows the believer to think whatever he wants.

---

Christianity tells us how the universe began, where humanity came from, why we do the things we do to each other, the origin and composition of "evil" and the definition of of "good," as well as the solution to the problem of human pain/evil. It establishes that the universe is ultimately just and that we as human beings have meaning and purpose - that life is intentional and significant.

Science has a limited view; what it can do (assess the material world and its contents) it does exceptionally well (though we often find as time goes on that science's assessments need to be revised); what it fails to have the ability to do is answer those questions that Christianity does answer. Science can only speculate and theorize about our origins; it cannot verify its theories in any concrete way - it may only argue circumstancially, using subjective tools in the process. That science can explain how the universe appears to function doesn't mean that it can do everything; it cannot prove/disprove the existence of God, neither can it fully account for the origins of life or the universe itself.

Believers do not believe "whatever they want." That is an oversimplification of something far more complex and profound.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Babbalanja

But the religious approach to the unknown is actually less honest and more fearful of the unknown than the scientific approach.

---

Don't see how this is true. It's only "less honest" if it's wrong, and science has not proven that conclusively; it has taken circumstancial evidence that is open to interpretation and then prematurely called out "case closed," but that doesn't prove anything. You'll have to clarify the "fearful" part for me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Babbalanja

The religious believer has certainty because he already affirms the validity of the Bible, and considers it a virtue to keep believing regardless of new information. The empirical researcher only has statistical confidence in his beliefs, because he realizes that new information could change or refute what he currently believes. Which approach is actually more accepting and curious about the unknown?

---

You assume that "new information" somehow contradicts the Bible. Archeological finds over the last 30-40 years continue to affirm the Bible's claims by verifying the existence of people and locations that scholars once (mistakenly) asserted didn't exist. I think the scientific community is guilty of the same thing - there is plenty of evidence to suggest that the Bible is accurate, yet plenty of people continue to dismiss it as "fairy tales" and "myths."

The empirical researcher also is not completely objective in his/her pursuit of knowledge. Science sometimes involves objective tools of interpretation (like mathematics); other times it must rely upon more subjective methods of interpretation. If I begin from the mindset that there is no such thing as a spirtitual dimension to reality, then all my conclusions will reinforce this belief; if I believe that a spiritual dimension exists, then my scientific conclusions will lean that way (hence intelligent design): both scientists look at the same evidence and arrive at different conclusions because both began from a specific philosophical foundation upon which they assessed their evidence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Babbalanja

You say science can't answer all questions, and I agree. But as I said before, religion only pretends to answer them.

Regards,

Istvan

---

Again - you beg the question: "pretends" is only accurate if Christianity/religion is wrong; but that has not been irrefutably established.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

Christianity tells us how the universe began, where humanity came from, why we do the things we do to each other, the origin and composition of "evil" and the definition of of "good," as well as the solution to the problem of human pain/evil. It establishes that the universe is ultimately just and that we as human beings have meaning and purpose - that life is intentional and significant.

Again - you beg the question: "pretends" is only accurate if Christianity/religion is wrong; but that has not been irrefutably established.

---

Well, you believe the "answers" Christianity gives you regardless of whether science validates them, so why should you care if science contradicts them?

The Genesis account of creation is as fascinating as any ancient creation story. However, it's also no more consistent with what science has discovered about the formation and development of the universe and Earth than any of the rest. I wouldn't have expected the ancients to be privy to such knowledge. However, since you do, you simply choose to believe what's in the Bible.

Both of the Genesis accounts of where humans came from are similarly poetic and metaphorical. Neither jibes with what the overwhelming evidence from archaeology, molecular biology, and comparative morphology tell us: that we share ancestry with all life through a long process of evolution. If a believer rejects the evolution of species by natural selection, he does so because he wants to believe Genesis.

As far as the morality and justice inherent in the universe, religious belief is simply an excuse for complacency. It sets up a construct that is validated regardless of what we observe in our universe: if things appear just, it's because there's justice in the way things are. If things do not appear just, it's only because we're not equipped to understand the ineffable wisdom of the Almighty. So birth defects, trypanosomes, liver flukes and all the rest of the things that make the innocent suffer are assumed to be part of God's plan by the believer.

That life is significant is exactly the opposite of what religion teaches. By defining this life as a mere warm-up for the afterlife, religious belief denigrates human endeavor and trivializes human suffering. Only by believing that this life is all we have can we be motivated to strive for justice here on Earth.

Quote:

---

Believers do not believe "whatever they want."

---

That's exactly what they believe. And, as you demonstrated above, they also believe whatever they want about what they believe.

Regards,

Istvan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Babbalanja

Well, you believe the "answers" Christianity gives you regardless of whether science validates them, so why should you care if science contradicts them?

The Genesis account of creation is as fascinating as any ancient creation story. However, it's also no more consistent with what science has discovered about the formation and development of the universe and Earth than any of the rest. I wouldn't have expected the ancients to be privy to such knowledge. However, since you do, you simply choose to believe what's in the Bible.

Both of the Genesis accounts of where humans came from are similarly poetic and metaphorical. Neither jibes with what the overwhelming evidence from archaeology, molecular biology, and comparative morphology tell us: that we share ancestry with all life through a long process of evolution. If a believer rejects the evolution of species by natural selection, he does so because he wants to believe Genesis.

As far as the morality and justice inherent in the universe, religious belief is simply an excuse for complacency. It sets up a construct that is validated regardless of what we observe in our universe: if things appear just, it's because there's justice in the way things are. If things do not appear just, it's only because we're not equipped to understand the ineffable wisdom of the Almighty. So birth defects, trypanosomes, liver flukes and all the rest of the things that make the innocent suffer are assumed to be part of God's plan by the believer.

That life is significant is exactly the opposite of what religion teaches. By defining this life as a mere warm-up for the afterlife, religious belief denigrates human endeavor and trivializes human suffering. Only by believing that this life is all we have can we be motivated to strive for justice here on Earth.

That's exactly what they believe. And, as you demonstrated above, they also believe whatever they want about what they believe.

Regards,

Istvan

---

One problem with this is that you begin by critiquing Christianity but then switch to speaking about all religious people. Now what you say would be true if it were corroborated by evidence. If you saw Christians, Hindus, and the rest behaving completely disrepectfully or worse toward all life.

There is good and bad in all people. But let me speak of some of the good people I know, of those religions. For instance the Christians I know and respect have a deep respect for life, considering it sacred. There is a creed within Christianity which says they are supposed to be "Good stewardship." And there are many Christians who realize that our stewardship of this planet has not been up to standard and they are working to change it.

Similarly, there are Christians who do understand that it's also wrong to kill animals as well as humans, and so they have become vegetarian. Or at least they may give up the buying of meat where it comes from factory farms, etc.

But again there is good and bad in all of us. You say that religion is all negative, basically, or in effect, and I am just pointing out that this is not true at all. Nor is it true that Christians (I will just speak of them as it seems that is the religion you are most familiar with) are all good. There is a deep fallacy a lot of Christians hold, generally the more fundamentalist ones, and that is also one of negative viewing. They say, if you have said one lie, then you are a liar. They actually say this. Now why not the reverse? Why not if you have said one kind word, you are a kind person? But they generally run by emotion and cannot see the glaring fallacy there.

But as for whether God exists; that is not dependent on what we see here. The shadow is dependent upon the person, but the person is not dependent on the shadow. So many have eloquently projected their inner visions of God and I do not have really the ability; but I have experienced the divine consciousness and can tell you from experience it is real. It can be hard to come out of the illusion, because there are billions of people on the planet reinforcing it, but once you become free of the illusion, you then realize it was always nothing.

A way to answer the " Why does God allow Evil and Wrong to take place" questions. God allows us to be put through trials everyday. And people that attempt these trials either pass them or fail. If you pass then it could lead to something good or another trial. If you fail then it could have the same outcome as if you were to pass it. God simply allows Satan to tempt us all. Its basically a giant test. If everyone would resist the temptation of Satan then I believe the world would be a better place. That doesn't mean that it would be, That's just what I believe.

All Praise is for God and all Power is His. He is our Lord and with Him is the end of all journeys.
Why I believe in God? Leaving alone the spiritual experiences and reasons I do have strong logical reasons which lead me to belive unconditionally in God. People use to say that there is no logical reasons to believe God exists. But... there are powerful arguments as:
1. There is an Unique Designer for the whole Universe including time, space, energy and matter - everything is so organized that I can't belive in nature doing so.
2. God's existence is clearly evident and easily traceable in unlimitated signs and proofs manifested in the creation of numberless atoms, cells, tissues, muscles, and everyone and everything created. How can I, as educated person, ignore all these evidences?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lacra

All Praise is for God and all Power is His. He is our Lord and with Him is the end of all journeys.
Why I believe in God? Leaving alone the spiritual experiences and reasons I do have strong logical reasons which lead me to belive unconditionally in God. People use to say that there is no logical reasons to believe God exists. But... there are powerful arguments as:
1. There is an Unique Designer for the whole Universe including time, space, energy and matter - everything is so organized that I can't belive in nature doing so.
2. God's existence is clearly evident and easily traceable in unlimitated signs and proofs manifested in the creation of numberless atoms, cells, tissues, muscles, and everyone and everything created. How can I, as educated person, ignore all these evidences?

---

If you are really an educated person, please go back to your science books and find out that all these have nothing to do with gods. The arguments of "intelligent design" and "beauty" have been debated for decades now and most deists don't even used them a lot anymore.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lacra

All Praise is for God and all Power is His. He is our Lord and with Him is the end of all journeys.

...

---

Hello Lacra!

That was a very beautiful post and thank you so much for posting it! I agree completely with what you said, and I think it's important to find out these answers for ourselves, within, rather than being too influenced by the zeitgeist around us or of society.

I would also add two ideas of logical reason for God. The first is that the existence of the infinite exists in the maths, and so it is logical by similarity to understand this as evidence that the infinite exists in philosophy, ontology, or reality, or spirit.


The second is that everything has a source. We can understand that everything which exists in the universe has a source, and it is logical to think the universe also has a source. Now sometimes people will ask what this means, and they remain unconvinced. They aren't stirred by it. But what it means is that there are more levels of reality than at first glance. (But since when did first glance ever reveal real knowledge?!)

So the source of the universe is a more real existence, so to speak. Its relation to us is like our relation to a computer game, or a novel, or a dream. That's why, yes a very logical, a highly advanced, and not superstitious why, that Muslims and Hindus both say that God is the only reality. Muslims have a sacred phrase for it... I don't know what the Sanskrit equivalent is, though it was the main tenant of Ramakrishna Paramahamsa.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NikolaiI

I would also add two ideas of logical reason for God. The first is that the existence of the infinite exists in the maths, and so it is logical by similarity to understand this as evidence that the infinite exists in philosophy, ontology, or reality, or spirit.

---

But infinity actually doesn't exist in mathematics. There's no number n for which you couldn't say n+1, right? It's true that the concept of infinity is symbolized as ∞ , but that's simply because it can't be defined mathematically.

And the reason for this is relevant to your argument. Graphing a function like y = 1/x, you notice that the lower the positive value of x, the higher the value of y. But you can't divide 1 by zero, so the y value of the function when x=0 is said to be an infinitely large number, or ∞ .

So in the for-us-by-us system of mathematics, the infinite is just a concept we created to deal with the reality of nothingness. By implication, then, what does this say about the concept of the infinite in the for-us-by-us construct of religion?

Regards,

Istvan

:thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lupe

If you are really an educated person, please go back to your science books and find out that all these have nothing to do with gods. The arguments of "intelligent design" and "beauty" have been debated for decades now and most deists don't even used them a lot anymore.

---

Thank you for your suggestion... I never stopped to study and to develop myself as a normal educated person ( At least, I hope so! ). You said that the deists concluded that accidentally, the mother nature created and developed all those. Well this is their opinion and I do have my personal opinion as well. Or I don't have the right to write my ideas, even badly expressed?
I understand that you display the postmodern attitude. That's great but exactlly the science books you were referring to, made me able to understand that there is an unique Designer in the background. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lacra

:thumbsup:

Thank you for your suggestion... I never stopped to study and to develop myself as a normal educated person ( At least, I hope so! ). You said that the deists concluded that accidentally, the mother nature created and developed all those. Well this is their opinion and I do have my personal opinion as well. Or I don't have the right to write my ideas, even badly expressed?
I understand that you display the postmodern attitude. That's great but exactlly the science books you were referring to, made me able to understand that there is an unique Designer in the background. :)

---

You show yourself to be an extremely intelligent person. Able to discern and decide truth for yourself. Keep up your education beyond that what someone merely tells you. Always remember, the science books are filled with misinformation...but I think that you already know that.

:thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NikolaiI

Hello Lacra!

That was a very beautiful post and thank you so much for posting it! I agree completely with what you said, and I think it's important to find out these answers for ourselves, within, rather than being too influenced by the zeitgeist around us or of society.

I would also add two ideas of logical reason for God. The first is that the existence of the infinite exists in the maths, and so it is logical by similarity to understand this as evidence that the infinite exists in philosophy, ontology, or reality, or spirit.


The second is that everything has a source. We can understand that everything which exists in the universe has a source, and it is logical to think the universe also has a source. Now sometimes people will ask what this means, and they remain unconvinced. They aren't stirred by it. But what it means is that there are more levels of reality than at first glance. (But since when did first glance ever reveal real knowledge?!)

So the source of the universe is a more real existence, so to speak. Its relation to us is like our relation to a computer game, or a novel, or a dream. That's why, yes a very logical, a highly advanced, and not superstitious why, that Muslims and Hindus both say that God is the only reality. Muslims have a sacred phrase for it... I don't know what the Sanskrit equivalent is, though it was the main tenant of Ramakrishna Paramahamsa.

---

Welcome, Nikolai! I am glad you like it... also your 2 logically adds are very interesting and I never realized this before. Can you give me a quote related to the Muslims' sacred phrase? Thank you! :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC

You show yourself to be an extremely intelligent person. Able to discern and decide truth for yourself. Keep up your education beyond that what someone merely tells you. Always remember, the science books are filled with misinformation...but I think that you already know that.

:thumbsup:

---

Thank you, Bienvenu! Ya, right, science books are not susceptible to be perfect. :)

Science books say that it takes millions of years for coal to form......however, we know for a FACT that coal is formed in a matter of decades in nature. Yet the education system has neglected to make the correction.

~

W a r n i n g

Personalised and off-topic posts have been and will be deleted without further notice.

~

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lupe

If you are really an educated person, please go back to your science books and find out that all these have nothing to do with gods. The arguments of "intelligent design" and "beauty" have been debated for decades now and most deists don't even used them a lot anymore.

---

Says who that intelligent design is no longer used? You are just making that up and completely wrong. Not only is intelligent design based on the physical world, but ity has now expanded into the biological. Read Stephan Meyer's Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design.

Here:http://www.amazon.com/Signature-Cell.../dp/0061472786

Quote:

---

[Stephan] Meyer graduated with a degree in physics and earth science in 1981 from Whitworth College and worked as a geophysicist for the Atlantic Richfield Company.[5] Shortly after, Meyer won a scholarship from the Rotary Club of Dallas to study at Cambridge University in the United Kingdom. Meyer earned his Ph.D. in history and philosophy of science in 1991.[6] His dissertation was entitled "Of clues and causes: A methodological interpretation of origin of life studies."[6]

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_C._Meyer