Why do you believe in God?

cOLTER said:

Religion of some form or another has always been in the majority throughout human history. Most people are religious before they ever become interested in religion. The inexplicable birth of religion has already occurred deep in the subconscious mind apart from religious introspection.

Click to expand...

But there is no common understanding of religion. There may be a common sense of wonder, or awe, or even of the numinous, but there is no common belief in a deity.
The idea of a single, creator-God, who cares for us and is concerned with our proper behavior, is a new one, and a cultural rarity.

When non-believers join something called "Religious Forums" in order to undermine religious people that's proof of the "effort" to deny God among non-believers. Like, if one had no interest in tennis they wouldn't join a tennis forum to argue tennis.

Click to expand...

Or it's evidence of our interest in a widespread and influential phenomenon, and an attempt to understand the reasoning or psychology of believers. Lack of agreement is not an attack. Questioning or lack of understanding is not undermining.

It's not that we aren't interested in religion -- we're fascinated by it.
If the need to explain your beliefs tends to undermine them, perhaps they were built on sand from the beginning, and could use some redesign or reïnforcement.

Valjean said:

We're designed to believe what? I haven't noticed any common religious narrative permeating the whole species.

Click to expand...

Your script indoctrinated in you is blinding you from seeing rationality. You, worse than any evangelical missionary of any religion are turning other peoples statements in to the script you have been indoctrinated into so religiously.

Why?

viole said:

Correct. It is a bit like the notion of time we have (wrong), and it takes a lot of effort to accept the relativistic one (right).

Ciao

- viole

Click to expand...

No!
We're born not believing in God. To reject God we'd have to have acquired a belief in one, somewhere along the line.
Retaining our natural lack of belief in unevidenced things isn't rejection, it's our default position.

Trailblazer said:

Because there is evidence that God exists.

Click to expand...

Link?

Trailblazer said:

The Messengers of God.

Click to expand...

How are they evidence? Haven't there always been all sorts of messengers, soothsayers, prophets and seers explaining God and his wishes? Why do they all tell different stories?

Valjean said:

Link?

Click to expand...

Do you think that can all be found on one link?

I believe that the best evidence that God exists is Baha'u'llah. His claims and the evidence that support His claims are on this link:

Questions for knowledgeable Bahai / followers of Baha'u'llah

Valjean said:

How are they evidence? Haven't there always been all sorts of messengers, soothsayers, prophets and seers explaining God and his wishes? Why do they all tell different stories?

Click to expand...

I explained why I believe that Messengers of God are evidence to @firedragon this morning:

#92 Trailblazer, Today at 10:49 AM

All Messengers of God bring a 'new message' that is pertinent to the age in which they appear and that is why their stories do not all sound the same.

firedragon said:

No no I was referring to your avatar name. Mangalavara.

Click to expand...

Ah, my username. It means 'Tuesday,' the day I was born.

Valjean said:

But there is no common understanding of religion. There may be a common sense of wonder, or awe, or even of the numinous, but there is no common belief in a deity.
The idea of a single, creator-God, who cares for us and is concerned with our proper behavior, is a new one, and a cultural rarity.
Or it's evidence of our interest in a widespread and influential phenomenon, and an attempt to understand the reasoning or psychology of believers. Lack of agreement is not an attack. Questioning or lack of understanding is not undermining.

It's not that we aren't interested in religion -- we're fascinated by it.
If the need to explain your beliefs tends to undermine them, perhaps they were built on sand from the beginning, and could use some redesign or reïnforcement.

Click to expand...

I'm providing a quote which says it better than I can say it. Or at least I get what its saying and I agree with it.

"Rationalism is wrong when it assumes that religion is at first a primitive belief in something which is then followed by the pursuit of values. Religion is primarily a pursuit of values, and then there formulates a system of interpretative beliefs. It is much easier for men to agree on religious values—goals—than on beliefs—interpretations. And this explains how religion can agree on values and goals while exhibiting the confusing phenomenon of maintaining a belief in hundreds of conflicting beliefs—creeds. This also explains why a given person can maintain his religious experience in the face of giving up or changing many of his religious beliefs. Religion persists in spite of revolutionary changes in religious beliefs. Theology does not produce religion; it is religion that produces theologic philosophy.

That religionists have believed so much that was false does not invalidate religion because religion is founded on the recognition of values and is validated by the faith of personal religious experience. Religion, then, is based on experience and religious thought; theology, the philosophy of religion, is an honest attempt to interpret that experience. Such interpretative beliefs may be right or wrong, or a mixture of truth and error.

The realization of the recognition of spiritual values is an experience which is superideational. There is no word in any human language which can be employed to designate this "sense," "feeling," "intuition," or "experience" which we have elected to call God-consciousness. The spirit of God that dwells in man is not personal—the Adjuster is prepersonal—but this Monitor presents a value, exudes a flavor of divinity, which is personal in the highest and infinite sense. If God were not at least personal, he could not be conscious, and if not conscious, then would he be infrahuman."

firedragon said:

you seem to be applying a monistic model to rationalise your existence and experience. Or am I wrong?

Click to expand...

Not quite. I still acknowledge duality, but only when consciousness is involved. Remove the conscious subject and you remove definition and relationship which are necessary for duality.

We observe caused causes in the world.


The desk lamp causes the room to be illuminated. But the bulb is caused to glow by the electricity.


If the electricity caused itself then it would have to have pre-existed itself which is absurd.


Therefore, the electricity was caused by something else.


There couldn't be an infinite chain of causes to explain the electricity because if there were no first cause there would be no subsequent effects.


By elimination the only option left to explain what we observe is a first uncaused cause.


Could we call this first cause God?

mangalavara said:

Ah, my username. It means 'Tuesday,' the day I was born.

Click to expand...

Ah. Tuesday. From Mars. Got it.

alypius said:

We observe caused causes in the world.


The desk lamp causes the room to be illuminated. But the bulb is caused to glow by the electricity.


If the electricity caused itself then it would have to have pre-existed itself which is absurd.


Therefore, the electricity was caused by something else.


There couldn't be an infinite chain of causes to explain the electricity because if there were no first cause there would be no subsequent effects.


By elimination the only option left to explain what we observe is a first uncaused cause.


Could we call this first cause God?

Click to expand...

Understood.

Valjean said:

We're born not believing in God. To reject God we'd have to have acquired a belief in one, somewhere along the line.

Click to expand...

Do you have any research for this or is this your faith alone?

Guitar's Cry said:

Not quite. I still acknowledge duality, but only when consciousness is involved. Remove the conscious subject and you remove definition and relationship which are necessary for duality.

Click to expand...

In that case you are proposing a pantheistic model. Did I get you right?

Trailblazer said:

Do you think that can all be found on one link?

I believe that the best evidence that God exists is Baha'u'llah. His claims and the evidence that support His claims are on this link:

Questions for knowledgeable Bahai / followers of Baha'u'llah

Click to expand...

But religious claimants are a dime a dozen. They're everywhere, and people always find 'reasons' and 'evidence' to support their claims.
What they don't have is hard evidence; evidence that can be investigated and tested by anyone interested, like we have for the claims of biology, chemistry or physics.
If the evidence were there, wouldn't there be common agreement, like there is for scientific claims?

alypius said:

We observe caused causes in the world.


The desk lamp causes the room to be illuminated. But the bulb is caused to glow by the electricity.


If the electricity caused itself then it would have to have pre-existed itself which is absurd.


Therefore, the electricity was caused by something else.


There couldn't be an infinite chain of causes to explain the electricity because if there were no first cause there would be no subsequent effects.


By elimination the only option left to explain what we observe is a first uncaused cause.


Could we call this first cause God?

Click to expand...

I suppose we could. Many do, but this is not the usual conception of a god, it's more like a law of physics.
A God is a personage, with qualities like consciousness, intention, likes and dislikes, goals, activities, &c.

Valjean said:

But religious claimants are a dime a dozen. They're everywhere, and people always find 'reasons' and 'evidence' to support their claims.
What they don't have is hard evidence; evidence that can be investigated and tested by anyone interested, like we have for the claims of biology, chemistry or physics.
If the evidence were there, wouldn't there be common agreement, like there is for scientific claims?

Click to expand...

What set of tests would you apply to a person who has claimed a Message from God?

I personally see that the Holy Books actually have a good list of tests.

Regards Tony

TransmutingSoul said:

What set of tests would you apply to a person who has claimed a Message from God?

I personally see that the Holy Books actually have a good list of tests.

Regards Tony

Click to expand...

What would these tests be?

firedragon said:

In that case you are proposing a pantheistic model. Did I get you right?

Click to expand...

Essentially, yes.