Why I believe in God?

[deryk]

I begin with why I think certain people do not believe in God. Then I will write about why I still believe in God.

One main reason why some people do not believe in God is that they do not find a direct proof of God. Today science has changed the way people live and think. People have tremendous faith in science and science shows concrete results, often magic like. Science goes by pure logical evidence and God does not seem to fit there as a loving father capable of performing any miracle. The idea that someone is controlling everything in the universe does not seem to ring true to these people.

Secondly, God is supposed to be omniscient, omnipresent and omni-powerful, but the control of real world seems to be in hand of other people. Injustice, cruelty, corruption and poverty are often evident in social life and many times wrong people seem to be controlling affairs or enjoying life. At the same time, some good people undergo great sufferings without any fault from their side. However, the all-powerful and just God who is also said to be a benevolent father seems to pay no heed and appears completely passive and indifferent.

Now, why I begin believe in God.

When I was young, my parents believed in God and so we followed those religious practices and I thought that a God is there. As we grew up and gain experiences, we begin to reason and apply logic to God. I think believing in God provides a comfort. Believers, have something to fall back upon - something to cling to in case of adversity or after we die. However, is this comfort feeling has a basis in fear for unknown? Alternatively, can we apply some logic to it?

If we consider things from scientific point of view, we find that everything in nature, right from a simple leaf to a blue whale or to just whatsoever else we can think of has a beautifully planned system. You can take an atom or nucleus of an atom or Sun or other stars or the galaxies in our universe, there seems intricate planning in everything. Science only has discovered this beauty of nature and scientists marvel at it. Here we have to choose: Whether it is God or some higher Power, or everything just evolved slowly with time by itself starting with a big bang, as whoever has heard about it keep saying. Choosing God as I did, many questions are still left unanswered but that is where the faith comes i.e. just going by what your heart says.

Coming to the second aspect, yes, I agree the real world is not exactly like we desire. But why does not God intervene then. Well, I think, if God starts intervening directly, smacking all the wrong persons, then world may improve very quickly but world would become very automated, dull and without spice. Second, if you believe your are eternal beings or in the reincarnation theory as I do, then eventually everything is going to fit- at its own pace. The world is a learning playground for us and God with his wild humor has His own plan for each one of us.

Well, to start with, I have given few main reasons why I believe in God. I hope other readers may give their views- on why they believe or do not believe in God.

I just hope that we do not go for one-another’s throat and keep our humor intact.

Lots of tossing around abstractions and no earned conclusions.

I think bad things happen because the universe does not unequivocally revolve around us, not because some anthropomorphic, astronomical presence rolled the dice to spice things up.

I've considered both sides of the opposition you've created for a very long time.

I doubt you can say the same.

Your aim isn't truth, it's self-fulfillment.

I'm curious, what would you say the flaw is?

The flaw is that the wager can easily be inverted. What if the afterlife sounds like a hideous fate? In that scenario the believer has everything to lose. It's still a matter of Kantian perception. It isn't really science.

[MarkBastable]

I'm curious, what would you say the flaw is?

Okay, it's my contention that gravity is operated by a colony of small fuschia pixies who live in an eggbox in my attic. If you sincerely believe that too (and incidentally, the pixies will know if you're faking), I'll give you a million dollars on your sixtieth birthday. If you don't believe it - no matter. There's no downside.

So - a million dollars for believing in the pink gravity pixies in my attic - and no downside.

Go on. Believe it. Really believe it. Go on. What's stopping you?

[deryk]

Okay, it's my contention that gravity is operated by a colony of small fuschia pixies who live in an eggbox in my attic. If you sincerely believe that too (and incidentally, the pixies will know if you're faking), I'll give you a million dollars on your sixtieth birthday. If you don't believe it - no matter. There's no downside.

So - a million dollars for believing in the pink gravity pixies in my attic - and no downside.

Go on. Believe it. Really believe it. Go on. What's stopping you?

So in essence, Occam's Razor axes Pascal's Wager.

[OrphanPip]

There's also the fact that for Pascal's Wager to be really effective, we would essentially have to sincerely believe in a number of contradictory doctrines. As you can't simultaneously follow all the religious dictates of Catholicism, Hinduism, Islam, Mormonism or what have you.

[YesNo]

Okay, it's my contention that gravity is operated by a colony of small fuschia pixies who live in an eggbox in my attic. If you sincerely believe that too (and incidentally, the pixies will know if you're faking), I'll give you a million dollars on your sixtieth birthday. If you don't believe it - no matter. There's no downside.

So - a million dollars for believing in the pink gravity pixies in my attic - and no downside.

Go on. Believe it. Really believe it. Go on. What's stopping you?

The following is closer to Pascal's wager since for Pascal there is a severe penalty in not believing.

If you believe in pink pixies you will get a million dollars on your sixtieth birthday. If you don't believe, a million dollars will be taken away from you on your sixtieth birthday.

How would you scientifically test the pink pixie hypothesis? You just look at the bank accounts of people who turn sixty.

How would you scientifically test whether there might be something like a God that Pascal would believe in? Some evidence comes from near death and shared death experiences. Other evidence comes from the near certainty that the universe had a beginning 13.73, plus or minus 1%, billion years ago.

However, these lines of evidence only give you partial support for Pascal's God who demands belief using heaven and hell to influence your choice. The evidence could imply all kinds of Gods, but not the pink pixies which we can disprove quickly.

[MarkBastable]

The following is closer to Pascal's wager since for Pascal there is a severe penalty in not believing.

If you believe in pink pixies you will get a million dollars on your sixtieth birthday. If you don't believe, a million dollars will be taken away from you on your sixtieth birthday.

How would you scientifically test the pink pixie hypothesis? You just look at the bank accounts of people who turn sixty.

How would you scientifically test whether there might be something like a God that Pascal would believe in? Some evidence comes from near death and shared death experiences. Other evidence comes from the near certainty that the universe had a beginning 13.73, plus or minus 1%, billion years ago.

However, these lines of evidence only give you partial support for Pascal's God who demands belief using heaven and hell to influence your choice. The evidence could imply all kinds of Gods, but not the pink pixies which we can disprove quickly.

I think you're missing both Pascal's point and mine. However, if you prefer, the pink pixies will give you invisible immortality. They really will. So start believing in them immediately.

I don't think that the severe threat makes any difference to the difficulty of sincerely believing something because the logic suggest it's a good idea to.

In fact, we can try that now.

If you don't believe in the pink pixies, they will call you a rude name.

Feel like believing in them yet?

If you don't believe in the pink pixies, they will throw a tennis ball at you.

Any glimmerings of faith?

If you don't believe in the pink pixies, they will destroy a foreign city you've barely heard of.

Ready to welcome the pixies into your heart?

If you don't believe in the pink pixies, you will be cast into the fiery furnace where you will languish in agony for all eternity.

Aha! Has that swung it? Do you now believe in the pixies?

I suspect not, and that's for three reasons.

1) It's necessary to have a pre-existing belief in the pink pixies to take seriously the threat of what they might do to you - so Pascal doesn't apply.

2) In any case, the ability to believe isn't really increased by the escalation of the threat.

3). Even if you knew for a fact that some other agency than the pink pixies was going to fulfil the threat - let's say it's me, in my capacity as the pixies' self-declared representative on Earth - you wouldn't be able to make yourself believe in them, although you might decide it was a good idea to pretend to.

[Varenne Rodin]

Okay, it's my contention that gravity is operated by a colony of small fuschia pixies who live in an eggbox in my attic. If you sincerely believe that too (and incidentally, the pixies will know if you're faking), I'll give you a million dollars on your sixtieth birthday. If you don't believe it - no matter. There's no downside.

So - a million dollars for believing in the pink gravity pixies in my attic - and no downside.

Go on. Believe it. Really believe it. Go on. What's stopping you?

I believe it! It was the fuschia that sold me.

[Paulclem]

Why don’t you read your response about Kalachakra Tantra. We might have had an interesting discussion if you took your time to read that book. Please don’t make assumptions that I criticize your integrity. How can I do that if I don’t know you????? I raised a question how could you make assumptions about the author or about the website that posted that book without reading it and checking the references the author provided. Please, don’t make more assumptions.




I am not trying to get a last word. I just don’t see any reason to continue our discussion. We have the rights to disagree. It is you who have the need to convince that you are right and others are wrong. I don't have any need to prove to anybody what I know.

Secondly, I am tired of repeating myself. I wrote a few posts where I have explained where we differ in our approach to seeking the knowledge. Finally, I understand that you feel comfortable with accepting common knowledge about Buddhism. But you have to understand that not everybody is like you. There are people who are not followers and who question every belief that hold as truth. It is as simple as that.

You came into this discussion stating I must remember there are three aspects of Buddhism - Hinayana, Mahayana and Tantra. My response was that they are not different in the sense of their basis, but they have a different focus for practice. Tantra grows from practising the Mahayana. It is not seperate in the sense that you become a Tantric Buddhist and not one of the others.

If you want to discuss this I will.

As for the Kalachakra Tantra - was that in a previous discussion? The one on your thread where you are using a site which is full of anti-Dalai Lama sentiments?

Please don’t make assumptions that I criticize your integrity.

You have criticised my integrity - not that I am offended. Every time you mention me making assumptions - you are criticising my integrity.

If you want to argue that Madame Blavatsky knew anything at all about Buddhism and the teaching of Tantra - then go on.

It is you who have the need to convince that you are right and others are wrong.

Some of the things that have been written are incorrect. Are you criticising me for pointing this out? You can check what I say. I'm just about to respond to Mazhur's last post where he has stated something incorrect in previous posts.

Buddhism believes in self-torture to get rid of sufferings.

Mazhur - this is fundamentally incorrect. A reading of the Buddha's life will establish that he rejected such asceticism for the Middle way. As he was sitting in a starved state he realised that this was not going to answer the question of solving the suffering of life. He then began to take food again and resumed his quest for Enlightenment. What you said is fundamentally against The Buddha's own example.

[QUOTE=mazHur;1092661]

If you think I am incorrect please let me know where?? Start with telling the fundamental beliefs of Buddhism which can possibly aid to its better understanding as well as help someone convince about it for a possible 'conversion'.

I still hold on to my idea that Buddhism is a ''passive' kinda religion disfavoring ACTION and laying more stress on mysticism, rituals, esoteric and occult.

I have absolutely no wish to convert anyone. I respect your religion, and wish you well in the practice of it. HH he Dalai Lama said some years ago that people should follow the religion they grow up with unless they have a very strong attachment to another.

I still hold on to my idea that Buddhism is a ''passive' kinda religion disfavoring ACTION and laying more stress on mysticism, rituals, esoteric and occult.

It's true that Buddhism advocates peace, as Ashoka demonstrated. It is not a passive, sit about, doormat, let it happen to you religion though. It basically gives an individual the tools to try to locate the sources of suffering and to change their behaviour or situation in order to improve that. It teaches action, but right action through a correct appraisal of the situation rather than by reacting with destructive or negative emotions like anger. The result of acting unskillfully is to incur negative Karma, which leads to more suffering.

[ftil]

You have criticised my integrity - not that I am offended. Every time you mention me making assumptions - you are criticising my integrity.

Well, we have a very different understanding what assumptions mean. When I said that you made assumptions I didn’t criticized your integrity but I said that you were wrong about my thoughts. You may try to sit in my head and read my thoughts,........ believing that it is true.

Some of the things that have been written are incorrect. Are you criticising me for pointing this out? You can check what I say. I'm just about to respond to Mazhur's last post where he has stated something incorrect in previous posts.

Well, I have noticed that you also questioned others who wrote about Blavatsky or Kalachakra.
Yes, I criticized that. It sounds that if somebody challenges your belief system, you become defensive and attack. You use the same tactic so that don’t be surprised that I brought this up. To make very clear, I am not talking about myself but about others who studied that subject in depth.

As for the Kalachakra Tantra - was that in a previous discussion? The one on your thread where you are using a site which is full of anti-Dalai Lama sentiments?

Well, it was not a site. It was a book that the site you mentioned posted it. This book can be found on a number of websites. May I ask you again how can you make a judgment without reading a book and checking references the author provided? You will find a number of important scholars. Don’t be afraid to challenge your beliefs but if you do, please,..... don’t expect others to be afraid to challenge and question.

[MarkBastable]

It sounds that if somebody challenges your belief system, you become defensive and attack.

To be fair, old love, the same could be said of you, or me, or anyone who mounts an argument in order to defend a position. So it's hardly a useful observation about someone you're arguing with. In fact, it smacks a bit of desperation.

[mazHur]

Mazhur - this is fundamentally incorrect. A reading of the Buddha's life will establish that he rejected such asceticism for the Middle way. As he was sitting in a starved state he realised that this was not going to answer the question of solving the suffering of life. He then began to take food again and resumed his quest for Enlightenment. What you said is fundamentally against The Buddha's own example.

Maybe you are right but I thought Buddha believed in 'self-punishment' to achieve nirvana.

What is Kalachakra??? Literally it means ''Black Circle''

[YesNo]

I think you're missing both Pascal's point and mine. However, if you prefer, the pink pixies will give you invisible immortality. They really will. So start believing in them immediately.

From my view, we all already have "invisible immortality". There is no need to believe in anything to get this. So why bother wagering at all for something we already have?

I don't think that the severe threat makes any difference to the difficulty of sincerely believing something because the logic suggest it's a good idea to.

In fact, we can try that now.

If you don't believe in the pink pixies, they will call you a rude name.

Feel like believing in them yet?

Let's test this scientifically. I don't believe in the pink pixies. I am waiting to hear the rude name. Ah, I don't hear one. I can conclude either the pink pixies don't exist or they do not have the ability to call me a rude name.

If you don't believe in the pink pixies, they will throw a tennis ball at you.

Any glimmerings of faith?

OK, let's test this. I don't believe in pink pixies, but no one is throwing a tennis ball at me. I can dismiss the pink pixies.

If you don't believe in the pink pixies, they will destroy a foreign city you've barely heard of.

Ready to welcome the pixies into your heart?

I think it is safe to assume that there are more people in the world who don't believe in pink pixies than there are cities in the world. Since these cities still exist, the pink pixie threat is not real.

If you don't believe in the pink pixies, you will be cast into the fiery furnace where you will languish in agony for all eternity.

Aha! Has that swung it? Do you now believe in the pixies?

I don't believe in a fiery furnace where you will languish in agony for all eternity. There might be other hells, however.

II suspect not, and that's for three reasons.

1) It's necessary to have a pre-existing belief in the pink pixies to take the threat seriously - so Pascal doesn't apply.

2) In any case, the ability to believe isn't really increased by the escalation of the threat.

3). Even if you knew for a fact that some other agency than the pink pixies was going to fulfil the threat - let's say it's me, in my capacity as the pixies' self-declared representative on Earth - you wouldn't be able to make yourself believe in them, although you might decide it was a good idea to pretend to.

There are people who live under oppressive environments where they have to pretend to like what a government is doing just to survive. In this case there is no need to believe in anything. They are fully aware of the dangers they face.

[MarkBastable]

From my view, we all already have "invisible immortality".

I wasn't intending to talk about what each of us individually believed, but to talk about whether Pascal's Wager worked. If you start from the idea that we all have immortality whether we believe in God or not, then Pascal doesn't apply, whether or not it works.

OK, let's test this. I don't believe in pink pixies, but no one is throwing a tennis ball at me. I can dismiss the pink pixies.
.

Remember, this is analagous to the punishment that God will visit upon us - which is the flipside of eternal heavenly life. Like God, the pixies won't be throwing the tennis ball - or doing anything else to you, nice or nasty - until after you're dead. That's the basis of Pascal's Wager, and of Bastable's Pixies (Invisible Immortality Version).

Of course, the beauty of Pascal is that he doesn't preclude Bastable's Pixies or anything else, as long as they aren't mutually-contradictory. You can believe in just about everything that might be beneficial. If it were possible to believe things on the strength of seeing that they might do you some good, Pascal would have the maximum spread-bet chance of believing the thing that turned out to matter.

[cafolini]

If you don't believe in the pink pixies you know of no pisses of pixies well pissed.

[Paulclem]

Well, I have noticed that you also questioned others who wrote about Blavatsky or Kalachakra.
Yes, I criticized that. It sounds that if somebody challenges your belief system, you become defensive and attack. You use the same tactic so that don’t be surprised that I brought this up. To make very clear, I am not talking about myself but about others who studied that subject in depth.



Well, it was not a site. It was a book that the site you mentioned posted it. This book can be found on a number of websites. May I ask you again how can you make a judgment without reading a book and checking references the author provided? You will find a number of important scholars. Don’t be afraid to challenge your beliefs but if you do, please,..... don’t expect others to be afraid to challenge and question.

The question about the Kalachakra - from what I recall - I'll go and have another look at the thread in a bit - the book on the site you mentioned has a very skewed interpretation of the meaning of Tantric Buddhism. Reading further on, I noticed denigrating references to HH The Dalai Lama. I assume you had looked at this site in good faith, but were perhaps unaware of the agenda behind it. I have read enough of the pages to understand that it does have an agenda. The reason I picked up on this - as I was browsing a link you provided - were some very basic mistakes in the explanation of some aspects of Tibetan Buddhism. It was when I looked further that it became clear that this is a site full of misconceptions and misinterpretation which is intended to show Tibetan Buddhism in general, HH The Dalai lama and Tantra in particular, in a negative light. I was merely pointing out to you that this is the case, and anyone reading it should be aware of it.

Although Tibetan Buddhism, and Buddhism in general, is usually well regarded, there are agencies that seek to denigrate it. The obvious one is the Chinese Govt, who maintain that HH is a splittist wanting to separate Tibet from China again. China is very sensitive to criticism, and past policy regarding Tibet by Mao resulted in an orchestrated famine that killed over a million Tibetans. HH has stated that he is willing to work with the Chinese, and won't be seeking independance - it is politically impossible given China's resources.

May I ask you again how can you make a judgment without reading a book and checking references the author provided?

The judgement is from what it says in the text of the site. My reading of it was clear. I feel the site is written in an intentionally misleading way, and so I don't feel reading the references - which may include texts that have valid information or not - is particularly relevant. If you like, I'll go back and have a look at the things that stand out as either intentionally misleading, a negative interpretation or just plain wrong.

Yes, I criticized that. It sounds that if somebody challenges your belief system, you become defensive and attack.

Attack - challenge - correct - question. I prefer the last three labels, but I will continue to do so when something is so obviously incorrect. There are already a lot of misconceptions regarding Buddhism.

Don’t be afraid to challenge your beliefs but if you do, please,..... don’t expect others to be afraid to challenge and question.

In the cases on here I've never had belief challenged. The concepts about Buddhism I challenge are well known in terms of being rock solid Buddhist concepts. The thing I challenged Mazhur about - that Buddhism is about finding Enlightenment through suffering is completely the opposite of the Buddha's message. I don't see anything wrong in challenging a wrongly stated fundamental question.

You know I will respond if you take issue with anything, but if I am wrong, or find I am wrong, I will admit it freely. Tell me where I have been wrong and I'll hold up my hands if you're right.

Maybe you are right but I thought Buddha believed in 'self-punishment' to achieve nirvana.

He went through an ascetic stage, but rejected this as a valid way to gain freedom from birth, ageing, sickness and death. There are statues of the Buddha as virtually a skeleton, but the message was probably intended to refute Hindu asceticism as a way to truth.

Maybe you are right but I thought Buddha believed in 'self-punishment' to achieve nirvana.

What is Kalachakra??? Literally it means ''Black Circle''

I've heard it referred to as The Wheel of Time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalachakra