Why I believe in God?

[NikolaiI]

An atheist doesn't know "the truth". He admits ignorance at the point where others, who can't possibly know "the truth", claim to know "the truth".

I believe you. After all the universe is a big place, ain't it?

Yes.. and yet you just say that others cannot possibly know the truth. Can you see the error in this? What if I said you could not possibly know the truth? I wouldn't say that, though.

It's just, that's one thing which is amazing to me, when people say, "others, who can't possible know the truth"...

Quite the contrary, anyone can attain self-knowledge, self-truth, self-realization. Not no one, but anyone and everyone. It is possible for anyone to attain peace and enlightenment.

[lichtrausch]

Yes.. and yet you just say that others cannot possibly know the truth. Can you see the error in this? What if I said you could not possibly know the truth? I wouldn't say that, though.

It's just, that's one thing which is amazing to me, when people say, "others, who can't possible know the truth"...

Quite the contrary, anyone can attain self-knowledge, self-truth, self-realization. Not no one, but anyone and everyone. It is possible for anyone to attain peace and enlightenment.

When you said "the truth", I was assuming you meant the dogmas common to our world which ask for blind faith in exchange for "the truth". Terms like the truth, self-knowledge and self-truth are vague and not conducive to a rational discussion.

[Dr. Hill]

To attain peace and enlightenment is to become a secular humanist.

[NikolaiI]

When you said "the truth", I was assuming you meant the dogmas common to our world which ask for blind faith in exchange for "the truth". Terms like the truth, self-knowledge and self-truth are vague and not conducive to a rational discussion.

You forgot to reply to my criticism. You said in your last post that there are some who cannot know the truth. You didn't specify who, so I might ask - who is it that cannot know the truth?

Perhaps anyone who says something which isn't materialist? Or anyone who believes in anything mysticial or spiritual?

Or is it anyone who speaks of peace, or ineffable peace beyond normal thought? Or worse, the worst crime in a rationalist's mind, speaks of mysticism?

There do exists states of mind, and states of reality, beyond anything you know, or also beyond anything I know. When I experienced one of those, it was like a revelation.

Just as in the spectrum of light there are light which we cannot see, so in the spectrum of consciousness is there consciousness which we are not aware of - spiritual, or divine consciousness is not perceptible to mental thought, just as mental thought is not perceptible to lower forms of consciousness (animal thought/behavior).

[lichtrausch]

You forgot to reply to my criticism. You said in your last post that there are some who cannot know the truth. You didn't specify who, so I might ask - who is it that cannot know the truth?

Perhaps anyone who says something which isn't materialist? Or anyone who believes in anything mysticial or spiritual?

Or is it anyone who speaks of peace, or ineffable peace beyond normal thought? Or worse, the worst crime in a rationalist's mind, speaks of mysticism?

There do exists states of mind, and states of reality, beyond anything you know, or also beyond anything I know. When I experienced one of those, it was like a revelation.

Just as in the spectrum of light there are light which we cannot see, so in the spectrum of consciousness is there consciousness which we are not aware of - spiritual, or divine consciousness is not perceptible to mental thought, just as mental thought is not perceptible to lower forms of consciousness (animal thought/behavior).

To make sure we're on the same page, can you define what you mean by "the truth"?

[NikolaiI]

Back then they were decent guesses but they couldn't and still can't be backed up with reason.

Oh - because all those who believe in God are the same, equally inept and inferior to the atheist, who knows the truth by reason?

An atheist doesn't know "the truth". He admits ignorance at the point where others, who can't possibly know "the truth", claim to know "the truth".

This is the line of conversation... I am not even sure what all you are claiming. Obviously you are against God and religion. I can only assume you are also saying, Daoism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Christianity, Wiccan, and all other types of religion or spirituality are all dogma and opposite to reason...? You might like to read the Tao Te Ching, read a good book on Buddhism or the Dhammapada, read the Bhagavad-Gita, before you obliquely criticize the first three, anyway...

I am not a big fan of religions which think they are exclusively true, that is worse than anything. But also it is a big, wild, and totally unreasoned leap to say that all those who say anything about spirituality or spirit or soul are wrong. Do you know really, very much about Hinduism, Buddhism or Taoism, to say that they aren't supported by reason? Or even Christianity or Islam or Judaism for that matter?

[lichtrausch]

This is the line of conversation... I am not even sure what all you are claiming. Obviously you are against God and religion. I can only assume you are also saying, Daoism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Christianity, Wiccan, and all other types of religion or spirituality are all dogma and opposite to reason...? You might like to read the Tao Te Ching, read a good book on Buddhism or the Dhammapada, read the Bhagavad-Gita, before you obliquely criticize the first three, anyway...

I am not a big fan of religions which think they are exclusively true, that is worse than anything. But also it is a big, wild, and totally unreasoned leap to say that all those who say anything about spirituality or spirit or soul are wrong. Do you know really, very much about Hinduism, Buddhism or Taoism, to say that they aren't supported by reason? Or even Christianity or Islam or Judaism for that matter?

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?

[Judas130]

When studying all the theodicies for the problem of evil, or reasoning behind God's existence, be it a priori or a posteroiri, and understanding that all fail or prove ineffectual with modern understandings...what proof can one bring to the table to suggest the existence of a deity? True empirical reasoning will suggest no proofs for God at the end of the day, and no one philosopher has before managed to prove a deity's existence without contradiction, or without corrupt or bias premises. To say you can disprove a God is probably wrong, there is no way of knowing, yet the same is applied to believing - there is no way of knowing.
No one can fully agree on what a God is - as we all have varying ideas upon the subject. Anselm would claim that even the atheist understands God (or 'that than which nothing greater can be perceived') and thus proves the existence through disbelief, because the Atheist understands God to disprove it (as existence, to Anselm, is necessary to 'that than which nothing greater can be perceived', as existence is a characteristic of perfection). However, you can't take one idea from the mind and just bullet it with pure logic, and being a priori, it relies wholly on definition, not physicality. All Anselm proves is that God is purely conceptual, and exists only in the mind as fabrication - Kant and Hume made sure to bring that argument to its knees.
Essentially, my question to believers, is that, with the knowledge that God cannot be disproved by sciences and such, nor proved, only traditional ideas challenged, why still believe without the proof, without any empirical evidence? Polkinghorn challenged Dawkins by saying that dawkins forgets about the Human longing for a deity, that humans strive for divinity - but Polkinhorn does not prove a God here, he only proves that there is a longing, nothing more is said.
peace

[sc9108]

I don't believe because I don't feel the need, I have great believe but also great doubt in humanity, And that keeps me going also when I think of the war and death religion has caused that makes me uncomfortable,

[NikolaiI]

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?

Yes, absolutely. We agree on it very much. I am sorry I didn't reply sooner but I've been traveling. I'll reply in more length soon, hopefully.

[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.

[Judas130]

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.

[NikolaiI]

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. Most of the time.

[NovemberGuest]

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:

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:

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.

[Redzeppelin]

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.