Why I believe in God?

[NikolaiI]

Isn't belief in God also and opinion called absolute truth?

No, the opinion is not called absolute truth. God might be called absolute truth, but not the opinion that he exists. Our opinion can never be anything more than what we are, and actually it has to be less. And what are we? We are simply parts of the whole. Every one of us interconnected. Dependent on others' observation, just as others are dependent on ours. That is, if one existed alone, he would not even really exist. But realizing one is a part of the whole, one is part of the absolute, that opinion itself is not infinite or supreme. Nothing like that. The living entity is fallible, prone to mistakes, etc.

[Dr. Hill]

I hadn't realized I had started such a fuss. I was being honest in my beliefs, I feel that religion is a danger to the world. I didn't call THAT fact, I called the fact that I believe it fact, which is true, I can attest.

And I don't believe it was right to attack (which you did) Petronius like you did, Redzeppelin and Nikolai to a lesser extent. He was arguing for arguments sake, debating on a forum is not a crime. The fact is, science has proof, religion has zeal. The proof is disregarded by the religious and the zeal is seen as silly by the rationalists, so nothing gets accomplished. I felt that Nikolai's post made him sound as if he didn't come up with that himself, but was merely repeating it as absolute truth because others had told him (hence, brainwashed) and he sounded like he belonged to a cult (which, in my opinion, differs only slightly from a religion). It was not an insult, and my intention is all that matters in distinguishing it from an insult and a statement; the fact that he got offended and that others got offended reflects on their nature, and how easily they are offended, which is something that only causes more problems.

[Redzeppelin]

And I don't believe it was right to attack (which you did) Petronius like you did, Redzeppelin and Nikolai to a lesser extent. He was arguing for arguments sake, debating on a forum is not a crime. The fact is, science has proof, religion has zeal. The proof is disregarded by the religious and the zeal is seen as silly by the rationalists, so nothing gets accomplished.

Science has "proof" of what, exactly? And what kind of "proof" does it have? You make tremendously vague and general claims. Religion, for one, does not try to "prove" anything. Religion is not a counterpart of science - it deals with en entirely different aspect of life than does science. The two are not in competition. You oversimplify the believer's position - a typical attitude of the non-believer.

Pet got called out because he - like you - lack basic courtesy in referring to other peoples' beliefs; it's one thing if you don't like the way the people present it - that's fair - but mocking the beliefs shows a lack of maturity in intellectual discussion. It is less that I'm "offended" and more that your language is disrespectful. Your assent on that point, by the way, is not required.

I felt that Nikolai's post made him sound as if he didn't come up with that himself, but was merely repeating it as absolute truth because others had told him (hence, brainwashed) and he sounded like he belonged to a cult (which, in my opinion, differs only slightly from a religion).

You "felt" that his words indicated something about the depth (or lack thereof) of his religious experience? That doesn't sound very empirical or rational or scientific to me - it sounds a lot like the rationaliztion given by religious people for what they believe: "I feel like God is directing me to.." Your "feelings," sir, are not reliable indicators of reality. Most empiricists rely upon facts.

Judging the sincerity of someone's belief systems off of a bulletin-board forum post is highly presumptive - what it speaks of is YOUR attitude towards religion more than the sincerity or depth of Nilolai's spiritual experience. You have no way of knowing the truth, so you use your misunderstanding of religion to categorize him.

It was not an insult, and my intention is all that matters in distinguishing it from an insult and a statement; the fact that he got offended and that others got offended reflects on their nature, and how easily they are offended, which is something that only causes more problems.

You need not agree with my assessment of your words in order for your words to have a certain effect. Your attitude - like many who disbelieve - is insulting and attempts to degrade into psychosis or wishful thinking something that is profound, meaningful, and life-affirming to a great many people in this world. Your defense of such an attitude speaks badly in your favor.

[Virgil]

People throw the word proof around. If God doesn't exist, you cannot prove a negative. One can say there is no evidence of God, and then one can agree or disagree. But one cannot say that there is proof that God doesn't exist.

[JBI]

People throw the word proof around. If God doesn't exist, you cannot prove a negative. One can say there is no evidence of God, and then one can agree or disagree. But one cannot say that there is proof that God doesn't exist.

To some extent, though I think it is safe to say that the sun didn't stop moving, or that one can disprove things within the text. Either way though, that is no "proof of god" Agnosticism of that sort allows only for one option - if God cannot be proven or disproved, than he cannot be used for any argument in regards to morality, or the law, since the validation of the "divine morality" is faulty. That Protagorian Sophism, and I mean that in the denotative form, leads essentially to the conclusion that anyone who says that God does exist, is merely a rhetorician, a liar, as the proof is non-existent, whereas anyone who denies God cannot be 100% sure, and therefore is relying on rhetoric to prove the non-existence.

By that reckoning, those who believe have naturally been duped by the rhetoric of the Church, and of scripture, whereas those who haven't have been duped by perhaps another sophist. Either way, the agnosticism that this equates to, assuming one doesn't go either way, and believe either sophist, leads to a conflict with in many times, the religion itself, as scripture and the tradition dictate punishment for infidels or apostates. It then becomes impossible to fence sit, as you either, for instance, burn in hell, or say your Hail Marys.

That being said, I don't doubt you can disprove some facets of religion, or disprove a majority of theological work, or interpretation of scripture. The fact that there is debate on these things shows us that there is no "one truth" even within religious dogma. I'm just pointing out that the agnostic approach is rather conflicting with various religions, and will lead nowhere for someone who really isn't sure.

[Joreads]

Do you need a reason to believe on God? I don't know why I believe in God but I do. Some would cal that faith I guess.

[Dr. Hill]

Science is based solely on trying to prove things, and succeeding or failing. Evolution is proven through fossils and observing the evolution of bacteria and viruses, which evolve very quickly in comparison to multi-cellular organisms. Science IS proof, what do you mean what proof? They use actual, tangible experiments to prove things. Evolution may just be a "theory", but so is gravity, and I don't see anyone denying that.

[Riesa]

"Do you need a reason to believe on God? I don't know why I believe in God but I do. Some would cal that faith I guess."


growl.

[Virgil]

To some extent, though I think it is safe to say that the sun didn't stop moving, or that one can disprove things within the text. Either way though, that is no "proof of god" Agnosticism of that sort allows only for one option - if God cannot be proven or disproved, than he cannot be used for any argument in regards to morality, or the law, since the validation of the "divine morality" is faulty. That Protagorian Sophism, and I mean that in the denotative form, leads essentially to the conclusion that anyone who says that God does exist, is merely a rhetorician, a liar, as the proof is non-existent, whereas anyone who denies God cannot be 100% sure, and therefore is relying on rhetoric to prove the non-existence.

I didn't say I didn't believe in God. I was referring to people who claim that there is "proof" that God doesn't exists. You can't prove a negative. One has to keep ruling out an endless list of possibilities and reach a conclusion or God then does exist. And what the circumstances of our knowledge is today may completely change tomorrow. So one can never be sure with a negative.

[Petronius]

No, the opinion is not called absolute truth. God might be called absolute truth, but not the opinion that he exists. Our opinion can never be anything more than what we are, and actually it has to be less. And what are we? We are simply parts of the whole. Every one of us interconnected. Dependent on others' observation, just as others are dependent on ours. That is, if one existed alone, he would not even really exist. But realizing one is a part of the whole, one is part of the absolute, that opinion itself is not infinite or supreme. Nothing like that. The living entity is fallible, prone to mistakes, etc.

God can be called absolute truth, or you decided to call absolute truth God? Important difference. When I say God, I refer to a mythological entity described in the bible, that may be synonymous to Allah. If you refer to something else entirely, then you deny that which introduced the term.
Of course we are part of a whole, we can never escape it, but this applies very well to the material world. We feed, we burn energy. Different elements of matter pass through us in a changing flux. In the end, be it still a part of us or not, everything transforms.
How do you link this to the idea of a unitary soul?

I don't subscribe to the idea that we don't exist in solitude. That's the "tree falling in the forest" rethoric. The world spins by the same rules, and we are not important enough for it to trick us or to perish without our perception.

All in all, what you say sounds paradoxal to me, as I believe universal laws to be etirely deterministic, yet I do not believe in God.


Red, you sound like a lawyer. You also sound like you think it's wrong for people to have impressions, especially negative ones, and that intuitive thinking is reprehensible. I'd like it more if we didn't make debates into a didactic competition of form, or a collective pat on the back for our variety.
There were ideas I considered relevant to the subject at hand in my posts, but you chose to focus on my defense of form and tell me what I aim at with my choice of words. You were quite presumptive yourself.

In truth, as I am more often an observer here than a participant, I have seen many sensible arguments (such as JBI's in this very thread) dismissed in unsatisfactory ways by believers. When reason doesn't work, some are only naturally tempted at humour.

[Redzeppelin]

Science is based solely on trying to prove things, and succeeding or failing. Evolution is proven through fossils and observing the evolution of bacteria and viruses, which evolve very quickly in comparison to multi-cellular organisms. Science IS proof, what do you mean what proof? They use actual, tangible experiments to prove things. Evolution may just be a "theory", but so is gravity, and I don't see anyone denying that.

Science can prove certain things; some things are evident by themselves and can be retested (gravity, for example); other things are not so - they require that the "evidence" be interpreted (especially if the actual event - the beginning of life - cannot be observed); in order to interpret something, we must apply an interpretive scheme of some sort. The intelligent design theorist applies a different interpretive device to the same "evidence" a secular scientist does (who is applying a different interpretive device - namely, naturalism) and they wind up with two different interpretations of the "evidence." Lots of evidence doesn't necessarily speak for itself.

Red, you sound like a lawyer.

Far from it. I do this for fun.

You also sound like you think it's wrong for people to have impressions, especially negative ones, and that intuitive thinking is reprehensible.

Nope - impressions and assumptions are very normal - they are impossible to avoid. But - since many empiricists/atheists/evolutionists like to dismiss creation or God because of a "lack of evidence," I simply like to point out that their logic, applied rigorously to all of life, makes almost all claims of "what is" into nonsense because much of what we believe to be true is based upon feelings, assumptions, impressions, etc. I simply point out the contradiction in the empiricist's position. You can't disslove God out of existence due to a "lack of evidence" and then talk about the "truth" of something you believe when that "truth" (Hill's idea that Nikolai is a "brainwashed cultist" for example) is based upon a subjective impression. Consistency is what I'm asking for.

I'd like it more if we didn't make debates into a didactic competition of form, or a collective pat on the back for our variety.
There were ideas I considered relevant to the subject at hand in my posts, but you chose to focus on my defense of form and tell me what I aim at with my choice of words. You were quite presumptive yourself.

My friend - you chose to take up a cause that wasn't yours - namely Hill's unseemly disrespect pointed towards believers by his silly (and very subjective) terminology. His langugage opened himself up for attack; you stepped in; don't blame me that you stepped into a discussion with me - I didn't twist your arm and challenge you. You took up my argument about terminology. I presumed nothing: I took your language to task. Make it clear what I presumed and I'll gladly retract if my presumption is in error.

In truth, as I am more often an observer here than a participant, I have seen many sensible arguments (such as JBI's in this very thread) dismissed in unsatisfactory ways by believers. When reason doesn't work, some are only naturally tempted at humour.

But humor that degrades what people feel deeply about isn't funny; name-calling ("brainwashed cultist") isn't funny either.

[NikolaiI]

To some extent, though I think it is safe to say that the sun didn't stop moving, or that one can disprove things within the text. Either way though, that is no "proof of god" Agnosticism of that sort allows only for one option - if God cannot be proven or disproved, than he cannot be used for any argument in regards to morality, or the law, since the validation of the "divine morality" is faulty. That Protagorian Sophism, and I mean that in the denotative form, leads essentially to the conclusion that anyone who says that God does exist, is merely a rhetorician, a liar, as the proof is non-existent, whereas anyone who denies God cannot be 100% sure, and therefore is relying on rhetoric to prove the non-existence.

By that reckoning, those who believe have naturally been duped by the rhetoric of the Church, and of scripture, whereas those who haven't have been duped by perhaps another sophist. Either way, the agnosticism that this equates to, assuming one doesn't go either way, and believe either sophist, leads to a conflict with in many times, the religion itself, as scripture and the tradition dictate punishment for infidels or apostates. It then becomes impossible to fence sit, as you either, for instance, burn in hell, or say your Hail Marys.

That being said, I don't doubt you can disprove some facets of religion, or disprove a majority of theological work, or interpretation of scripture. The fact that there is debate on these things shows us that there is no "one truth" even within religious dogma. I'm just pointing out that the agnostic approach is rather conflicting with various religions, and will lead nowhere for someone who really isn't sure.

Why can nothing be said for God? Because nothing needs to be said for God. There mere name of God includes everything He symbolizes. Eternal time, Absolute Truth, the source of beauty, love, strength, truth, in fact the source of everything. Nothing exists separate from His will, yet the majority of the matter is completely involved and it acts only inanimately. This isn't dogma, it's simply an idea about God. All are, fortunately, welcome to come upw it and share their ideas, thanks to Lit-net, without fear of being insulted for them. (I hope.)

God can be called absolute truth, or you decided to call absolute truth God? Important difference. When I say God, I refer to a mythological entity described in the bible, that may be synonymous to Allah. If you refer to something else entirely, then you deny that which introduced the term.
Of course we are part of a whole, we can never escape it, but this applies very well to the material world. We feed, we burn energy. Different elements of matter pass through us in a changing flux. In the end, be it still a part of us or not, everything transforms.
How do you link this to the idea of a unitary soul?

I don't subscribe to the idea that we don't exist in solitude. That's the "tree falling in the forest" rethoric. The world spins by the same rules, and we are not important enough for it to trick us or to perish without our perception.

All in all, what you say sounds paradoxal to me, as I believe universal laws to be etirely deterministic, yet I do not believe in God.


Red, you sound like a lawyer. You also sound like you think it's wrong for people to have impressions, especially negative ones, and that intuitive thinking is reprehensible. I'd like it more if we didn't make debates into a didactic competition of form, or a collective pat on the back for our variety.
There were ideas I considered relevant to the subject at hand in my posts, but you chose to focus on my defense of form and tell me what I aim at with my choice of words. You were quite presumptive yourself.

In truth, as I am more often an observer here than a participant, I have seen many sensible arguments (such as JBI's in this very thread) dismissed in unsatisfactory ways by believers. When reason doesn't work, some are only naturally tempted at humour.

I wanted to answer this on another thread recently. My understanding of God is similar to my understanding of the soul. The soul is more than a little mysterious since we cannot see the soul, yet it has been a fascinating subject for writers, poets, and philosophers since the beginning of written thought. Why believe in the soul, when we cannot see it, hear it, taste it, touch it, or smell it? The people who have ideas about it, are they just liars, or can anything really be known about it? They are not liars. The soul is mysterious, and we'll never know it completely, written down in a few paragraphs or something like this; first and mainly because we will never have consensus about it.

Now first of all, is it illogical to believe in the soul? Is it not rational to believe in the soul? I would like to answer "no" to each of these questions. The soul is more sublime than reason. The soul cannot go against reason, because reason cannot go against the soul; the soul being more appealing to us in terms of beauty, which cannot go against terms of truth. I am not saying anything against reason; in fact reason is very important. If it were not for reason, we would never come to the soul. The reason for this is that since the soul is pure, sublime, it also means it is very rare. By first knowing about the soul, it makes things like reason, morality more important because otherwise, the glimpse of the soul is lost.

[Petronius]

Red, what I did was find myself a way into the conversation, hoping it will eventually evolve. You claim Dr. Hill's remark was rude, I thought it witty. This thread after all is partially targeted at "opening the minds" of non-believers, as it looks from the original post (he does begin with why he thinks people don't believe and moves on to saying why he still does), so a non-believer is entitled to honest commentary. How is it fair to me if you call me out as narrow-minded for not feeling spiritually enlightened by something I viscerally percieve as trite, yet I have to give it response worthy of great wisdom - otherwise I'm a jerk? Is engaging the conversation not respect enough? I don't think claiming something important on a personal level would get you any attention on academic level.

This is a debate. I consider people who participate mature enough to deal with stark oposition. I have no doubt you and Nikolai are educated and you seem to have firm beliefs. Same here. I think this thing you said sounded crazy... Move on or ignore the idiotic troll that I am, but don't use subjective moral arguments to divagate on my behaviour and what it says about my arguments. If you still want to continue, and I don't blame you if you don't, I told you that for me, the lack of proof you insist about is secondary.
What is your stand on misuse of evidence in the consolidation of the believer's interpretation?

I wanted to answer this on another thread recently. My understanding of God is similar to my understanding of the soul. The soul is more than a little mysterious since we cannot see the soul, yet it has been a fascinating subject for writers, poets, and philosophers since the beginning of written thought. Why believe in the soul, when we cannot see it, hear it, taste it, touch it, or smell it? The people who have ideas about it, are they just liars, or can anything really be known about it? They are not liars. The soul is mysterious, and we'll never know it completely, written down in a few paragraphs or something like this; first and mainly because we will never have consensus about it.

Now first of all, is it illogical to believe in the soul? Is it not rational to believe in the soul? I would like to answer "no" to each of these questions. The soul is more sublime than reason. The soul cannot go against reason, because reason cannot go against the soul; the soul being more appealing to us in terms of beauty, which cannot go against terms of truth. I am not saying anything against reason; in fact reason is very important. If it were not for reason, we would never come to the soul. The reason for this is that since the soul is pure, sublime, it also means it is very rare. By first knowing about the soul, it makes things like reason, morality more important because otherwise, the glimpse of the soul is lost.

But if we assign souls to human beings, then a soul is created or forced into the material world each time a person is born or concieved. If that person's life decides the future path of the soul (ascension, damnation), then souls are bound to the material world and in theory their flux can even be controlled by mortals. So why argue that the soul is not part of this body?
Can't the soul be merely an expression of identity? I don't believe in morality as something preternatural either, but as choices given the imperative of survival in the context of social cooperation. It makes sense without the implication of deities and additional realms.

[billyjack]

The intelligent design theorist applies a different interpretive device to the same "evidence" a secular scientist does (who is applying a different interpretive device - namely, naturalism) and they wind up with two different interpretations of the "evidence." Lots of evidence doesn't necessarily speak for itself.

sounds like you're saying evolution is god's way of creation, a bit pantheistic i'd say.

But humor that degrades what people feel deeply about isn't funny; name-calling ("brainwashed cultist") isn't funny either.

i take it you dont watch south park. if you can't laugh at your views, you betray them

[Dr. Hill]

I thought I had explained that I genuinely believe the overzealous to be brainwashed cultists, and was not poking fun at anything.