Why I believe in God?

[BienvenuJDC]

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.

[Lacra]

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!

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.

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

[BienvenuJDC]

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.

[Scheherazade]

~

W a r n i n g

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

~

[Virgil]

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

[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

[NikolaiI]

~

W a r n i n g

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

~

Yay...o!

heh...

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!

Well, I was referring to la ilaha illallah. I know that some translated it as "There is no God but Allah," while others translate it as "There is no reality other than God (or Allah)." I asked one Sufi to explain the two translations, and she replied that reality is another name for God.

Now I am not a Muslim although I'm learning some gradually and getting to know some Sufis. I did read a wonderful poem about la ilaha illallah muhammad rasulallah by Lex Hixon Al Nur Jerrahi, the poem was called Affirmation of Unity. Really amazing poem!

And Ramakrishna Paramahamsa's central idea was similar to the Sufis' saying there's no reality but God. He would say often that God alone is real, nothing else exists. Of course, though, he didn't originate this. Meher Baba said the same thing in the same words.

[tailor STATELY]

Topic: Why I believe in God?

For me, a Christian, all things denote the existence of God. I know this. I've always known this. The prophets of old and new testify of this fact. The Holy Ghost testifies to me of this fact.

I love this scripture from Matthew chapter 6:

24 ¶ No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

Mammon, to me, describes the natural man who is in opposition to that of God.

I am ever amazed at the new theories or models to explain every nuance that the natural man discovers - each contradicting the last. How many dimensions (this month) to justify the mathematics of theoreticians. How many more universes or dimensions or models or particles will be foisted before the natural man proves 'his' vanity.

With regards to Babbalanja answering Nikolai earlier:

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.UnQuote

Babbalanja: "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"

It is fashionable to divide by zero when it suits mathematicians and theorists when describing complex systems such as Wheel theory, string theory, and Riemann spheres

In mathematics, the Riemann sphere is a way of extending the plane of complex numbers with one additional point at infinity, in a way that makes expressions such as 1/0= ∞ well-behaved and useful, at least in certain contexts.

The Riemann sphere has many uses in physics. In quantum mechanics, points on the complex projective line are natural values for photon polarization states, spin states of massive particles of spin 1/2, and 2-state particles in general. The Riemann sphere has been suggested as a relativistic model for the celestial sphere. In string theory, the worldsheets of strings are Riemann surfaces, and the Riemann sphere, being the simplest Riemann surface, plays a significant role. It is also important in twistor theory.

Truths that I ascribe to:

Axiom: There is a God.

Axiom: All things denote a God.

Axiom: The natural man is in opposition to God.

Axiom: Science and mathematics does not preclude the existence of God.

Axiom: It is of far greater importance for God to prove men than for man to prove God.

From "The Book of Mormon" Alma 29:

1 O that I were an angel, and could have the wish of mine heart, that I might go forth and speak with the trump of God, with a voice to shake the earth, and cry repentance unto every people!
2 Yea, I would declare unto every soul, as with the voice of thunder, repentance and the plan of redemption, that they should repent and come unto our God, that there might not be more sorrow upon all the face of the earth.
3 But behold, I am a man, and do sin in my wish; for I ought to be content with the things which the Lord hath allotted unto me.

May those with ears listen, those with eyes see; and those without seek. Again from Matthew chapter 6:

33 But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.

With utmost respect to those of differing views,
sincerely,
tailor STATELY

[Babbalanja]

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.

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.

Religion is all about believing whatever you want, but that's not what science is about.

Expecting scientific inquiry to pander to our prejudices does a great disservice to the millions of researchers (believers and nonbelievers alike) whose work has given us a consistent, coherent picture of our universe. The vastness of space, the development of life on Earth over billions of years, and the amazing world of microbiology, are all comprehensible to us because of the long legacy of empirical evidential inquiry.

What we believe about our material universe doesn't depend on wishful thinking or appeal to scripture. The process of scientific inquiry is cumulative and inductive: new information refines or changes what we know. We don't believe DNA is the basis of heredity because it makes us feel good; we believe because the theory is backed by evidence. If a theory puts more evidence into a coherent, testable framework, it's considered a better theory until something even better comes along.

There's no way to test religious beliefs; they are merely affirmed until the believer no longer doubts them, and redefined whenever it's convenient. In the process of empirical evidential inquiry, obsolete ideas are scrapped forever. No one says "geocentrism wasn't literally true, but since people believed it for most of human history, it must have some value."

But is scientific support ever relevant to religious belief anyway? For the record, I have never stated that scientific inquiry invalidates religious belief. In fact, I submit that people profess religious belief for reasons that have nothing to do with facts and evidence.

Regards,

Istvan

[lupe]

Religion is all about believing whatever you want, but that's not what science is about.

Expecting scientific inquiry to pander to our prejudices does a great disservice to the millions of researchers (believers and nonbelievers alike) whose work has given us a consistent, coherent picture of our universe. The vastness of space, the development of life on Earth over billions of years, and the amazing world of microbiology, are all comprehensible to us because of the long legacy of empirical evidential inquiry.

What we believe about our material universe doesn't depend on wishful thinking or appeal to scripture. The process of scientific inquiry is cumulative and inductive: new information refines or changes what we know. We don't believe DNA is the basis of heredity because it makes us feel good; we believe because the theory is backed by evidence. If a theory puts more evidence into a coherent, testable framework, it's considered a better theory until something even better comes along.

There's no way to test religious beliefs; they are merely affirmed until the believer no longer doubts them, and redefined whenever it's convenient. In the process of empirical evidential inquiry, obsolete ideas are scrapped forever. No one says "geocentrism wasn't literally true, but since people believed it for most of human history, it must have some value."

But is scientific support ever relevant to religious belief anyway? For the record, I have never stated that scientific inquiry invalidates religious belief. In fact, I submit that people profess religious belief for reasons that have nothing to do with facts and evidence.

Regards,

Istvan

Thank you Istvan, I personally don't have the energy anymore to respond to these kind of posts.
At the end of the day, arguments that are presented without proofs, can be dismissed without proofs...

[Lacra]

Everything around me, the Universe itself testifies for me that God exist and I do have to believe in His existence. Our Universe operates in accordance with exact scientific laws. Science leads to believe in God.
Can a person reasonably be expected to believe that these exacting requirements for life as we know it have been met “just by accident”? The Earth is exactly the right distance from the Sun; it is exactly the right distance from the Moon; it has exactly the right diameter; it has exactly the right atmospheric pressure; it has exactly the right tilt; it has exactly the right amount of oceanic water; it has exactly the right weight and mass; and so on.
Of course I have spiritual reasons to believe in my Lord but in this thread I just mentioned the logical perspective. There are many scientists who talk about the existence of God, without being religious persons.

[hoope]

We believe in God ..simply because He exists and he is the only that worths being Worshipped.
And knowing that there is a One Great Lord behind this universe makes one fear God and worship him not only believe in Him.

The existance of this universe was not spontaneously ;it didn't cease to exist because we can witness death of creatures .. others being born , we witness life , water , winds things that come into exisrence and then disappear all that shows that there is a outside determining factor that brought it to existence and here comes the invalidity of an infinite sequence. Because there is only One Almighty God that runs this uuniverse...
Don't you think that He is worth believing?????

[MarkBastable]

O. M. lack of. G.

[Virgil]

Religion is all about believing whatever you want, but that's not what science is about.

Expecting scientific inquiry to pander to our prejudices does a great disservice to the millions of researchers (believers and nonbelievers alike) whose work has given us a consistent, coherent picture of our universe. The vastness of space, the development of life on Earth over billions of years, and the amazing world of microbiology, are all comprehensible to us because of the long legacy of empirical evidential inquiry.

What we believe about our material universe doesn't depend on wishful thinking or appeal to scripture. The process of scientific inquiry is cumulative and inductive: new information refines or changes what we know. We don't believe DNA is the basis of heredity because it makes us feel good; we believe because the theory is backed by evidence. If a theory puts more evidence into a coherent, testable framework, it's considered a better theory until something even better comes along.

It's not based on any religious principles. None whatsoever. Show me the religious statement where it is. It's based on pattern, structure, organization, and probability. Argue with the PhDs that support. Otherwise you just blowing smoke. Claiming it's wishful thinking proves nothing but your lack of acceptance of anything but your fixed views. And what is your scientific background? What's your education level?

[OrphanPip]

I'm sorry, but I find Meyer offensive to everything biology stands for. He has continuously used dishonest tactics to support ID, and has also conveniently made a fortune out of his schemes through the Discovery Institute.

I've read his 2004 paper, the only peer reviewed paper ever published by the DI, and it was a travesty that this got to be published. For one, it was a comparative anatomy paper that somehow got published in a journal of systematics (the publishing of the discovery of new species). Secondly, it was composed primarily of speculation.

ID is simply not science. Their early pet project, irreducible complexity, was quickly unmasked as a load of ****. Meyer and company (usually Behe) used to argue that the flagellum was so complex that it could never have evolved because it required too many steps, so it was "irreducibly complex". However, it only took 4 years for biologist working on the origins of the flagella to identify intermediate forms in the secretory systems of bacteria. This is just one example of the intellectual laziness of the ID movement. You find something you don't have to the answer to at the moment, resort to the "God did it" cop out, and then quit looking for evidence. This is the tactic they repeatedly utilize, find unanswered problems and tack on the "design" explanation. There is no actual attempt to answer any scientific questions, there is no utilization of the scientific method, it is simply not science.

Not to mention that the DI initially started out as an explicitly pro-Christian organization, and just remodeled itself as a non-partisan deistic organization for PR reasons.

[DanielBenoit]

Hey here's my opinion on the issue and I'm sure Babajana knows it, as we have debated over it before

I find faith to be fascinating in the Kierkegaardian sense of being making the leap of faith. This act is beyond words, and thus beyond justification. It is in a sense humanistic transcendence (I do not mean this in some Kantian way), but in the fact that it transcends the dialectical rules of language.

I usually think of faith and reason analogously to Godel's Incompleteness Theorem: With reason one can have a non-contradictary but incomplete system, and with faith, one can have a complete system but with contradictions. Again, this is merely an analogy and has no relation with the theorem itself.