Why I believe in God?

[NikolaiI]

you say the universe comes from god. i say it doesnt come from anywhere bc there is nowhere outside it for it to come from.

everything has a source? you could go on and on ad infinitum looking for the source of things. at some point you randomly stop and say, God! rather than looking back to a source or a cause, might be more helpful to admit the arbitrariness of this and look around at what is--after all, isnt talk of source and cause only a means to understand what is? what better way to do this than to ditch the old witchcraft of "looking back" to prove/justify the present

This "God!" you speak of only is disagreeable to you because of attachment or aversion to it. Basically it is disagreeable to you. Am I at least correct in this? It is a completely pointless discussion if you reject everything out of hand, but then I am not going to randomly abandon my position because you disagree with it. We can discuss and it doesn't have to be a bad thing. I hope you don't think I am a "Crazy believer," or something like that. That's part of my reason for discussing these things, is to defend believers. 70% of the world believes in God, or something like this; and if you simply open yourself to the communication with people, and then expand your base of people you know... get to know them you will find they don't speak of these things lightly, but they speak of what is deeply sacred to them. If you simply travel and look at people to learn something from them you will see there is always a great deal to learn - between anyone, be it believer or atheist or anything else.

I am speaking of a source and relating it to witchcraft does not make it so. Of course this is philosophy - yes, of course we are not going and making a living or something, we are discussing and so the point of it is inquiry - who am I? What is existence? This is simply philosophy and if it disgusts you, you can pursue something else, but this is philosophy.

The "Source" I am speaking of, which you seem to be against, is very valid. You have said nothing in response to my statement which was that all forms are existing in the original source. Everything in this life in this universe has a source! Every river has a source. Every being has a source. Every cause has an effect, and every effect has a cause. Yes it is fluid. But yes there are perfections, sources, forms like this. There is infinite life. After all is there any form which will not appear once, again, three times, and infinitely?

You haven't said anything of value or substance you've simply dismissed everything I said without indication of reason - you just said "all your talk of sources, it's nonsense."

The words I am using such as source and form are valid philosophical, they are valid linguistical terms, and unless I am using them wrong or stupidly, It's not wrong or stupid to use them. They've been used since Plato and yes thought has evolved, but no not everything Plato said was stupid and wrong.

[billyjack]

This "God!" you speak of only is disagreeable to you because of attachment or aversion to it. Basically it is disagreeable to you. Am I at least correct in this? It is a completely pointless discussion if you reject everything out of hand, but then I am not going to randomly abandon my position because you disagree with it. We can discuss and it doesn't have to be a bad thing.

god is not disagreeable to me. its ideas about the guy that i'm somewhat intolerant of.

I hope you don't think I am a "Crazy believer," or something like that. That's part of my reason for discussing these things, is to defend believers. 70% of the world believes in God, or something like this; and if you simply open yourself to the communication with people, and then expand your base of people you know... get to know them you will find they don't speak of these things lightly, but they speak of what is deeply sacred to them. If you simply travel and look at people to learn something from them you will see there is always a great deal to learn - between anyone, be it believer or atheist or anything else.

a local talk radio show host i listen to, the common man, has a theory that 7 out of 10 people walking around are lacking in common sense. funny that you're percentage of believers should line up with the common man's observations so well

I am speaking of a source and relating it to witchcraft does not make it so. Of course this is philosophy - yes, of course we are not going and making a living or something, we are discussing and so the point of it is inquiry - who am I? What is existence? This is simply philosophy and if it disgusts you, you can pursue something else, but this is philosophy.

i majored in philosophy nik. not that this makes me an authority. but i do enjoy it and i know what it is. question everything. including philosophy itself

The "Source" I am speaking of, which you seem to be against, is very valid. You have said nothing in response to my statement which was that all forms are existing in the original source. Everything in this life in this universe has a source! Every river has a source. Every being has a source. Every cause has an effect, and every effect has a cause. Yes it is fluid. But yes there are perfections, sources, forms like this. There is infinite life. After all is there any which will not appear once, again, three times, and infinitely?

an analogy: you say a river has a source. well yes it does. and the common held belief is that the source is something like Lake Itaska in regards to the mississippi. however, lake itaska's source has a source--underground springs that feed it. and these springs have a source--rainwater, which also has a source--clouds, ad infinitum.

source is circular when you get down to the nitty gritty. so goes with cause and effect.

You haven't said anything of value or substance you've simply dismissed everything I said without indication of reason - you just said "all your talk of sources, it's nonsense."

not so much nonsense as arbitrary

The words I am using such as source and form are valid philosophical, they are valid linguistical terms, and unless I am using them wrong or stupidly, It's not wrong or stupid to use them. They've been used since Plato and yes thought has evolved, but no not everything Plato said was stupid and wrong.

so defensive. yes plato said many things that still hold true. he also didn't say a lot of things, and therein lied his wisdom (again, a nietzsche paraphrase)

[NikolaiI]

an analogy: you say a river has a source. well yes it does. and the common held belief is that the source is something like Lake Itaska in regards to the mississippi. however, lake itaska's source has a source--underground springs that feed it. and these springs have a source--rainwater, which also has a source--clouds, ad infinitum.

Yes, and as I've said before, the universe itself, nevermind God, is pretty much more vast than anything we can imagine. You can't see the logical nature of the argument; since everything has a source - yes all is interconnected and arises, ceases, and things are always moving and flowing - this is my point as well. And God is the source of everything. In God are the forms of everything which exists. This entire material manifestation, which is actually a reflection of the spiritual world, are all forms which are made up in the source. Of course you may not understand this. It doesn't matter if you're a philosophy major or not. I am not trying to be particularly defensive, but yes I am defending belief against this onslaught of quips. You don't say anything except dismiss belief or faith or God and you only repeat over and over the negative that has been done in the past. You don't understand anything about psychology or human nature if you spout this perspective - if you think you've attained the last word on God, and that those who believe are wrong. If you did anything other than dismiss faith and belief with condescension, then there would be more to discuss. I apologize if I seem harsh. I will probably drop this because I don't think it's constructive to argue, but your posts do plead some opposition.

[billyjack]

all i was trying to do in my previous post was question one thing you said: "everything has a source."

i can't just shrug this off. close observations tell me that saying something is the "source" will always be a random statement. I think it important to question these little points because like a small hole in a dam, they can lead to tidal waves if left unchecked.

[Mr. Vandemar]

Our capabilities of living? Remember that in order to join this forum you must own a computer, a specific-to bourgeois gadget. The bourgeoisie are the strong, the rest are the weak. Strong in a capitalist sense, not strong intellectually speaking.

These advances in medicine and in "conditions of life" are only given to us. Are they given to the aboriginal living on a reserve in northern Saskatchewan? What about the refugee in the middle east? Or the AIDS infested child in Sudan? No.

All of these advances make our lives easier, because we can afford them (or we associate ourselves with those that can...if you live in a country with public health care). Not everyone has these. You need to see that only the bourgeoisie have them. Making our lives easier, and others harder, is what drains the people to become the weak. Once they are the weak and have to deal with these problems that we can easily solve, they are no longer a threat to the stability of our capitalist system.

[skasian]

Our capabilities of living? Remember that in order to join this forum you must own a computer, a specific-to bourgeois gadget. The bourgeoisie are the strong, the rest are the weak. Strong in a capitalist sense, not strong intellectually speaking.

These advances in medicine and in "conditions of life" are only given to us. Are they given to the aboriginal living on a reserve in northern Saskatchewan? What about the refugee in the middle east? Or the AIDS infested child in Sudan? No.

All of these advances make our lives easier, because we can afford them (or we associate ourselves with those that can...if you live in a country with public health care). Not everyone has these. You need to see that only the bourgeoisie have them. Making our lives easier, and others harder, is what drains the people to become the weak. Once they are the weak and have to deal with these problems that we can easily solve, they are no longer a threat to the stability of our capitalist system.

I assume that you are directing at me. Yes, the weak cannot utilise science but not only when you are describing the level of wealth but also age and intelligence. A person that is aged 2 and has an IQ of 50 can be also identified as weak as they cannot utilise science.

Actually you are wrong about how advances of medicine and other science cannot upgrade the conditions of life without being given firsthand. For instance, some antibodies that enables our body to be immune to certain diseases are inherited directly from the mother to the unborn child. Because of many years of development of medicine, it has helped our immune system to be stronger against diseases. The medicine that you may be recalling is a picture of a small white bottle with numerous capsules however because of years of development of medicine that is passed through our ancestor's veins, it has become flesh and blood in our bodies, enabling us to improve our standards of living by increasing the chances of our survival.

Your last paragraph indicates that the bourgeoisie do receive medicine in benefit of the creation of science to improve the standard living condition of our lives. It is evident that people, regardless of the people who doesnt receive them or not, have their lives improved by medicine/science. This contradicts to the post that you have stated that you do not believe that science improve our capabilities of living. Please note, even though there are people that miss out (but are constantly approached with medicine by "us") WE are infact receiving its benefits therefore it can be concluded that "people"'s capability of life is indeed improved by science.

[NikolaiI]

all i was trying to do in my previous post was question one thing you said: "everything has a source."

i can't just shrug this off. close observations tell me that saying something is the "source" will always be a random statement. I think it important to question these little points because like a small hole in a dam, they can lead to tidal waves if left unchecked.

I wish you could explain that more, because I sincerely did not intend it as random at all, or it is not to me. If I consider it, it does not seem random to me at all, rather it seems useful as something to always keep in mind. No thing exists separate from other things. Every object that anyone uses is dependent on at least one, and probably many, many other factors. For instance my clothes, everything I would ever use, not to mention a computer.

It seems absolutely valid to me to consider everything to have a source, and yes, be of the same nature as a river, that is, a flux of events. Since you actually say this yourself, that everything is in flux, I don't know why you disagree with my statement. Another way of thinking about this is like considering every living entity to be like a drop in a waterfall. They were together, as one, in the river above the falls, and separate for a short time, and then together as one afterwords. This is a Buddhist parable, and the time before and after is when we are unmanifest, then we are manifest for a short time, and afterwords we are unmanifest again. But being unmanifest is like being "at one" with everything, or at least it is basically eternal compared to the manifest.

Albert Einstein said this..

"A human being is a part of a whole, called by us _universe_, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest... a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty."

And there have been many western philosophers which studied eastern and western religion and did work in the field of connecting them. Ken Wilber is one of these.

[billyjack]

I wish you could explain that more, because I sincerely did not intend it as random at all, or it is not to me. If I consider it, it does not seem random to me at all, rather it seems useful as something to always keep in mind. No thing exists separate from other things. Every object that anyone uses is dependent on at least one, and probably many, many other factors. .

huh. i was talking about the decision to say, "this or that is the source of something," as a totally random, or better yet, conventional decision. telling me that all things are interrelated affirms this and disproves your idea of sources. so what are you speakin about?

It seems absolutely valid to me to consider everything to have a source, and yes, be of the same nature as a river, that is, a flux of events. Since you actually say this yourself, that everything is in flux, I don't know why you disagree with my statement.
.

well you said it yourself, the world is in flux and repeats itself like a circle. (you spoke of the circular reptition of existence above somewhere) no point on a circle can be deemed its beginning, source. so again, where's the source.

[NikolaiI]

huh. i was talking about the decision to say, "this or that is the source of something," as a totally random, or better yet, conventional decision. telling me that all things are interrelated affirms this and disproves your idea of sources. so what are you speakin about?

well you said it yourself, the world is in flux and repeats itself like a circle. (you spoke of the circular reptition of existence above somewhere) no point on a circle can be deemed its beginning, source. so again, where's the source.

First of all, I don't wish for you to accept anything without thinking. I'm not trying to hammer anything at you, but at the same time I don't think you're understanding me at all.

I probably fail in communicating with you because I don't know where to begin or end on this topic, as really it cannot be exhausted. What does it mean to be in flux? Let's take water as our example, as it illustrates perfectly. We look at water and the same water is recycled over and over, as it has been for billions of years. The water is always being used, running down hill, being evaporated, and going through so many other changes. It is eternally running this very complex course.

Now you disagree with my saying that everything is like this, everything is like this water. But you agree that all is in flux. This is exactly what in flux means - fluid. We observe the water and it is eternally flowing. In fact other things are like this too. The sun and moon may not be eternal, but we can assume the governing forces behind them are.

Now, the universe as a whole, I would like to point out, is greater than I will ever imagine. So in a way this prohibits me from attemting to understand it with certainty. But simply realizing how vast the universe is also make it very clearly absurd to say something like it cannot have a source.

Going to our example of water - do we agree that it's eternally fluid? It's hard to find myself agreeing with you with anything because you don't wish for my points, which are logically "holes"?.. But anyway, you said we are interdependent. Do you know what this means? One thing it means is that we are the same as the water we were talking about. Not the same exactly - but our natures reflect each other, since we and the water are both inderdependent. That means we are nothing apart from each other, but together we reflect each other and make up a reality between us. Existence is reflected with non-existence.

Except - you cannot get something from nothing. The universe can't come from nothing. It has to come from a source, in which all the forms in the universe already exist. So there is a source of all sources. And I would appreciate it if you'd be able to make some constructive point - or if you are not able to, then simply continue to act like I am somehow missing the obvious... when in fact I am not in the least... or at least tell me why I am wrong.

[blazeofglory]

"A human being is a part of a whole, called by us _universe_, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest... a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty."

This is a great thought. I do not care whether Einstein was an atheist or theist. I am really moved and this spirit is beyond anything. This is the philosophy I totally unreservedly subscribe to.

This is a path to enlightenment, a road map to understand the self and its relationship with all, both animates and inanimates. This in essence imbibes in us a feeling that rises above all philosophies, syllogisms, sciences and the like. This is the Gita, the Vedas, the Koran, the Tripitika, the Dhmma pada, the Torah, the Bible and all. If one can understand the subtlety and depth of it no things more to be understood. When our feelings, understandings and sense of oneness or togetherness can permeate all layers, peripherals or externals we become enlightened.

Of course this difference has created a gulf or void, and of course this difference has distanced us. This difference has created gulfs, remoteness, geographies, borderlines, economic and social ills, vacuums and the like and needless to say such narrow feelings wall us against truth and incarcerate us.

Of course we must rise above all narrow feelings, and sentiments to take the entire universe as our home. Time and space are sheer illusions. And Einstein has understood this truth and with this realization I liken him to a great Rishi, something of sainthood.

[B-Mental]

I wish I were more eloquent...perhaps like Nikolai or BlazeofGlory (two of my favorite philosophers). The inability of one to have faith (acceptance of something that cannot be proven) prevents one from understanding the nature of God. The more one understands compassion for all things, the closer one comes to enlightenment. It is surprising to me that those who are truly enlightened are so few, but then again the journey to enlightenment requires one to release themselves from their ego. This is obviously easier said than done.

[laidbackperson]

I wish I were more eloquent...perhaps like Nikolai or BlazeofGlory (two of my favorite philosophers). The inability of one to have faith (acceptance of something that cannot be proven) prevents one from understanding the nature of God. The more one understands compassion for all things, the closer one comes to enlightenment. It is surprising to me that those who are truly enlightened are so few, but then again the journey to enlightenment requires one to release themselves from their ego. This is obviously easier said than done

I think you have explained quite well.

[Delta40]

blazeofglory I have replied to some of your posts without reply. I have a spiritual identity which means that I have a deep seated belief in God. Can you tell me what difference it would make to me if I am not enlightened? That is to say, if I do not seek to self-examine or understand that which I believe throughout my existence? Do you think it is relevant and if it is, in what way would I be disadvantaged? I am genuinely interested in your thoughts.

[skasian]

Believing in the existance of God is not the same thing as believing that God is your one and true God, having confidence in Him and having faith that He is your saviour and creator.

[Delta40]

That notwithstanding. Even if I have complete faith and confidence in God. This means that I put myself in His hands utterly. Please, you don't need to focus at the belief vs faith level to address this question which is if I don't seek to understand or self-examine that which I believe, is it relevant?