Why do you believe in God?

[stvdv]

I rated your post as funny by accident. I meant to like it. I think Mohammad (s) and Ali (a) are available to all believers, as all chosen guides are of the past as well.

Yes, I also believe they do not discriminate

And it's amazing and wonderful that those guides of the past are still for real, even now. I love it. Experience this, makes life so much more intriguing and wonderful

 

[PureX]

We are designed to believe, it actually requires effort to reject God.

Hmm, ... this is an interesting assertion. I agree that we are designed too seek 'answers', and that we have to trust in what works for us even when we don't know why. But 'belief' seems to take things a step further, into a presumption of righteousness. A presumption that we humans don't really have the capacity to ascertain. I see faith as a necessity, whereas I see belief is an unnecessary hubris.

 

[firedragon]

For me, they appear (but very, very rarely) when I am very dedicated over a prolonged time with that Religion.

So, they do not appear the same to me usually. Though I would not be surprised, that if I would dedicate the same focus and attention (and time) to a different Religion that these experiences will show similarities (not that they appear whenever I do things, I see it all as His Grace)

With Muhammad, my focus was more of study and contemplation, and it was the first time I was so dedicated with Islam over a prolonged time, and Muhammad appeared clearly as a person not as light

And it was of course all Grace, and I was glad it happened, because now I'm more open than before towards Islam, before I was open, because 1 of my Masters was all about Islam, but after such experience it's more natural for me to believe Muhammad is for real (even now, as I see they are beyond time)

The experience with Jesus was in a setting with a group of ca. 200 people all chanting hymns (Portuguese), and really beautiful, and full of 'light', and I was in a joyful mood too, hence the appearance maybe came more as light, but that is just my guess.

And prior to this event, as a preparation, I kept very strict vegan diet, and lots of fasting as well as Silence and Solitude (far away from all "sex, drugs and rock' n roll"), not talking to people for ca. 2 weeks, and also silence during the 12h ceremony; I was really in 1 of my extreme enthusiastic, fanatic moods back then (nowadays I'm a bit more 'lazy', still a good focus, but less extreme).

All this I did not do when Muhammad appeared. So, I don't compare both myself. Both were very useful to me, and I really appreciate these gifts.

I am a person who likes to be in control and know things and be certain about things, but when it comes to Spirituality nothing is fixed, IMO, it's all reflection of my own action (of course all His Grace), and I'm not in control nor do I understand it, so I just accept what happens and continue

Thanks a lot stvdv. Im sorry if I asked questions that require your time. Thank you so much for your explanation.

 

[firedragon]

Because there is evidence that God exists.

What is the evidence, may I ask?

 

[Trailblazer]

What is the evidence, may I ask?

The Messengers of God.

 

[King Phenomenon]

I don't understand. How is space a god?

Is this an argument from personal incredulity?

Take care now

 

[firedragon]

The Messengers of God.

In your perspective, what do you mean and how do you really justify, messengers of God being evidence for God? To accept someone as a messenger of God, by default one has to accept God I understand. But how do you establish one person as a messenger of God?

You are taking the Top-Down approach. Its an interesting approach.

 

[Clear]

REVELATION AS EVIDENCE

The surest evidence of the existence of God.

We’ve all observed the endless philosophical, “cosmological”; “traditional”, “logical” and “scientific” data discussed between theists and agnostics and, though they are the most popular data types to use since logician-philosopher-scientists seem to want to “try” to “analyze” and "debate"…. Still I do not think that religion is supposed to be provable by such means and more importantly I do not believe these are the most powerful types of evidence for Christians to build and sustain a belief in God's existence.

I believe the strongest and most powerful, most compelling and profound evidence upon which one may base increasing faith in God's existence is direct communication with God; that is, personal revelation from God to an individual.

For example; Anciently, christianity had the promise of the Holy Ghost, given to individuals who enter into the proper spiritual process of change which results in obtaining the gift of the Holy Ghost. It is individualized. It is trustworthy. Those who have revelation seem to possess the strongest testimony of the truth of religious principles, including the existence of God.

However, this “gift” seems to be as impervious to objective observation by those who do not possess it as any other “second hand” data. It brings objective experiences to those who have it, but then, how does that person do more than “describe” to another person; regarding their personal revelations, or personal communications from God? To the outsider, (who is inexperienced in such things himself), those things may seem like ouigi boards or crystal balls at the county fair. It is difficult for me, (as a religionist) to condemn the agnostic for his skepticism that any such communication from God is taking place, and for his unwillingness to experiment with faith himself (though I wish he would).

The difficulty on a basic level is that miracles and personal communication from God only happen once certain keys are turned. With rare exception, some degree of faith precedes the most powerful data (the miracles; the personal objective evidence, and the conversations with deity), rather than faith following the personal experiences and the data.

Revelation often carries within it, the objective evidence that it is not a phenomenon generated by our own psyche. There are objective elements to revelation imbedded within it, as evidence that one is not crazy, and that they are not simply manufacturing the data.

Barring the fakers or the mentally unstable; The person who in actuality receives the witness of Gods existence by direct revelation from God, simply declares this knowledge "as one having authority" to do so for themselves, from revelation, and "not as the scribes" who are left to quote scripture or to quote science or to quote logic or to quote tradition (etc) as their authority for declaring the existence of God. I believe the orientation and quality of data gained by personal revelation versus all other types of "witness" is different.

I believe that at multiple times during my life, I have felt movings of the spirit of God in various levels of clarity and, for me, this has been the most profound evidence that there is a God.



Clear
ακτζδρω

 

[firedragon]

REVELATION AS EVIDENCE

The surest evidence of the existence of God.

We’ve all observed the endless philosophical, “cosmological”; “traditional”, “logical” and “scientific” data discussed between theists and agnostics and, though they are the most popular data types to use since logician-philosopher-scientists seem to want to “try” to “analyze” and "debate"…. Still I do not think that religion is supposed to be provable by such means and more importantly I do not believe these are the most powerful types of evidence for Christians to build and sustain a belief in God's existence.

I believe the strongest and most powerful, most compelling and profound evidence upon which one may base increasing faith in God's existence is direct communication with God; that is, personal revelation from God to an individual.

For example; Anciently, christianity had the promise of the Holy Ghost, given to individuals who enter into the proper spiritual process of change which results in obtaining the gift of the Holy Ghost. It is individualized. It is trustworthy. Those who have revelation seem to possess the strongest testimony of the truth of religious principles, including the existence of God.

However, this “gift” seems to be as impervious to objective observation by those who do not possess it as any other “second hand” data. It brings objective experiences to those who have it, but then, how does that person do more than “describe” to another person; regarding their personal revelations, or personal communications from God? To the outsider, (who is inexperienced in such things himself), those things may seem like ouigi boards or crystal balls at the county fair. It is difficult for me, (as a religionist) to condemn the agnostic for his skepticism that any such communication from God is taking place, and for his unwillingness to experiment with faith himself (though I wish he would).

The difficulty on a basic level is that miracles and personal communication from God only happen once certain keys are turned. With rare exception, some degree of faith precedes the most powerful data (the miracles; the personal objective evidence, and the conversations with deity), rather than faith following the personal experiences and the data.

Revelation often carries within it, the objective evidence that it is not a phenomenon generated by our own psyche. There are objective elements to revelation imbedded within it, as evidence that one is not crazy, and that they are not simply manufacturing the data.

Barring the fakers or the mentally unstable; The person who in actuality receives the witness of Gods existence by direct revelation from God, simply declares this knowledge "as one having authority" to do so for themselves, from revelation, and "not as the scribes" who are left to quote scripture or to quote science or to quote logic or to quote tradition (etc) as their authority for declaring the existence of God. I believe the orientation and quality of data gained by personal revelation versus all other types of "witness" is different.

I believe that at multiple times during my life, I have felt movings of the spirit of God in various levels of clarity and, for me, this has been the most profound evidence that there is a God.



Clear
ακτζδρω

Thus, you believe in God because of your personal communication with God!

 

[Unveiled Artist]

reread

"When non-believers join something called "Religious Forums" in order to undermine religious people"...............

I replied to the whole post.

Both religious and nonreligious undermine each other. Bring in RFs is irrelevant.

 

[Clear]

Hi @firedragon

REGARDING MY POST #88, WHY I BELIEVE IN GOD

firedragon said : "Thus, you believe in God because of your personal communication with God!"

No.

I think that there are multiple principles which can serve as evidence that God exists, but am merely pointing out that authentic revelation from God in it's various forms is simply the strongest evidence for the specific principle that a God exists.

While I feel that personal experiences of revelation tend to be the strongest evidence that God exists, and serves, in the main, to confirm a faith in God, I think that various individuals find many other types of data and have many types of experiences that, to them, are evidence that a God exists.


Clear

 

[Trailblazer]

In your perspective, what do you mean and how do you really justify, messengers of God being evidence for God?

I believe the Messengers are the only real evidence for God. One might believe that Creation is evidence but I don't see it that way because there are other explanations for Creation whereas there are really no other explanations for the Messengers of God; their Person, their Revelations (what they did on their missions), and in the case of the Messengers who wrote their own scriptures, the Bab and Baha'u'llah, what they wrote.

Moreover, I believe that God sends the Messengers for a twofold purpose. One purpose is as evidence of His existence and the other purpose is to reveal who God is to us. Another reason that God sends Messenger is to bring a message to humanity.

To accept someone as a messenger of God, by default one has to accept God I understand. But how do you establish one person as a messenger of God?

You are taking the Top-Down approach. Its an interesting approach.

I do not think that one has to believe in God in order to consider the possibility that a man is a Messenger of God. They would have to consider the possibility that God sends Messengers, look at the evidence that supports the claims of the Messenger, and then if they came to believe in the Messenger of God they would know that God exists. That is how it worked for me. I did not believe in God before I became a Baha'i. I believed in Baha'u'llah first and then I believed in God.

I just explained to @ratiocinator how to investigate the claims of Baha'u'llah:

#3220 Trailblazer, 22 minutes ago

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I see that never before has the Cause of our One God been so openly proclaimed to all humanity.

The call awakened me from a sleep like unto death.

Spoiler: Never Before has a Message been so Openly Proclaimed

Bahá'í Reference Library - The Promised Day Is Come, Pages 44-49

".. Referring to these Tablets addressed to the sovereigns of the earth, and which ‘Abdu’l-Bahá has acclaimed as a “miracle,” Bahá’u’lláh has written: “Each one of them hath been designated by a special name. The first hath been named ‘The Rumbling,’ the second, ‘The Blow,’ the third, ‘The Inevitable,’ the fourth, ‘The Plain,’ the fifth, ‘The Catastrophe,’ and the others, ‘The Stunning Trumpet Blast,’ ‘The Near Event,’ ‘The Great Terror,’ ‘The Trumpet,’ ‘The Bugle,’ and their like, so that all the peoples of the earth may know, of a certainty, and may witness, with outward and inner eyes, that He Who is the Lord of Names hath prevailed, and will continue to prevail, under all conditions, over all men…. Never since the beginning of the world hath the Message been so openly proclaimed…. Glorified be this Power which hath shone forth and compassed the worlds!

Who am I to turn away from the announcement awaited by all Faiths?

Regards Tony

God is a constant call of the soul that is looking to find meaning, looking to find peace and love in this world.

We are created in that very image, the potential of good is part of our being and our whole purpose to exist.

To not beleive in God is a denial of why we are created.

So to embrace God is to embrace Love, it is to find our purpose, but most importantly try to be worthy of that gift of spirituality.

Regards Tony

 

[Sand Dancer]

Because of the personal relationship I feel with Him. He has been there for me when there was no other. He has always taken care of me and been extremely merciful.

How? How do you know it's him?

 

[1213]

...why do you believe in God?

I believe because of the Bible and that the world exists as told in the Bible and things go as told in the Bible.

 

[firedragon]

I believe because of the Bible and that the world exists as told in the Bible and things go as told in the Bible.

Hmm. Thats interesting. What kind of things go as told in the Bible?

 

[Valjean]

We are designed to believe, it actually requires effort to reject God.

We're designed to believe what? I haven't noticed any common religious narrative permeating the whole species.
We seem to have an innate capacity for awe, but there is no belief design. If there were, there would be al lot more believers with a lot more homogenous beliefs.
We're born blank slates, belief-wise. We're taught what to believe by our parents and society.It may be a God, or many gods, or no gods, or just multifarious spirits.

A sense of morality is innate to personality because all personality comes from a moral God. In the same way a somehow registered hope and trust initiated by the indwelling spirit of the Father that lives within us.

No, a sense of morality has nothing to do with any God, else there'd be a common, species-wide morality. There is not.

Our sense of morality was selected for, just like opposable thumbs or color vision. It's utilitarian.

We're too vulnerable to thrive as individuals, so we became social animals, living in bands. Without strong group solidarity, coöperation, and in-group altruism (morality), we would never have survived the Pleistocene.

 

[Valjean]

This assertion is entirely contrary to my experience.

It's contrary to psychology and anthropology, as well. We're born with no beliefs.

 

[Trailblazer]

He expressed his claim as if it were universal ("We are designed to believe, it actually requires effort to reject God."). I was pointing out that I am a counterexample.

You are certainly not the only counterexample. Maybe "We" are designed to believe in God but I adamantly disagree that "it actually requires effort to reject God." In fact, from what I have seen, for many people it actually requires an effort to believe in God. That might not have been as true in the past, but it is certainly true in the present times.

 

[Valjean]

Salam

Who we are as in our exact identity cannot have an accurate reality without a perfect absolute judge seeing us exactly as we are.

Why? How does this follow?

Without that vision and accountability to our deeds, we won't assume people have an accurate value by which we love them, appreciate their deeds, and essentially assume their is an objective moral value to them.

I'm not following.
"...accurate value by which we love them?" What does that mean?

We value and trust people because it's utilitarian. We evolved our altruism and social conscience over millennia. These were necessary to maintain the cohesiveness and solidarity needed for functional bands of hunter-gatherers to survive.

We rely on God's vision accounting us to love others, appreciate others, and for relationships by which we assess people. Without an accurate value and reality, there's nothing there, and estimating and guessing would be futile.

Again, I don't follow any of this, nor do I understand how you came up with this concept of 'God's vision', or its necessity.