God's Existence

[Unveiled Artist]

Abrahamic God (not Jesus)

Since I know this question has asked a lot, I don't have time to go through hundreds of threads to find what I am specifically asking for. Mind you, if your religion is a fact, I believe you can explain it by facts not beliefs and experiences. Non-believers of the Abrahamic god, I know your opinions. If you reply, pleasae shed light from your former belief or maybe a source relating to the answers of these questions. Take your time guys.

So....

To those who believe their religion/spirituality/etc is fact...

Example

You have the universe and it's patterns in my left hand.
You have god/creator on my right

Taking out your personal experiences because, by the nature of your experiences, you will have bias answers...

How did you (any believer in the God of Abraham) connect the patterns of the universe to god's existence?​

The answer can't be a "hunch", gut feeling, spirit calling you, and things of that nature. I know it's personal and a mystery to you but if god is a fact and he does exist outside of your experiences then like any other abstract thought, philosophy or religious way of thinking (say Socrates and Aristotle), there needs to be a relation between the left and the right "hand" based on facts-tangible (not evidence) factors that by seeing the patterns of the universe, a child or an adult isolated from any religion can pick up just as I see the grass and I know it is green.

If god is not based on facts, why do you believe in a creator?

If factors matter less than opinion, than what are your opinions based on and why do you trust them?

If your opinions are based on facts, how do you define facts to where you know (and please explain as above) that the universe patterns lead you to know not believe/have a hunch etc but know that a creator exists?​

I have had the "god experience" before. It's not something I know it's something that I have experienced. That might sound weird, but think of psychology. This is not talking about anyone but myself. I am partial sighted off and on and during the day my vision drops or it's perfect 20/20 one side and 20/30 another at it's best and then pops up to 20/80 at its worse.

The experience is real. It's a fact. The symptoms are real. The doctors can see them.

There is no cause. No creator, quote on quote, to these symptoms/experiences. They are real to me but to my neurologist, she thinks I'm faking it. My ophthalmologist says it's psychological, and the story goes on.

My clinical psychologist doesn't say my experiences are not real. Of course they are real. My experiences are proven by hard evidence of those black spots I see when they show me my eye chart.

However, I'm not talking about the symptoms (experiences) and I'm not talking about the eye chart (the evidence say sacred texts), I'm talking about the cause.

My eye doctor couldn't put the evidence he found to the cause. All five could not. Likewise, a lot of us atheist can't find how believers of the Abrahamic god can put symptoms (the patterns of the universe) to the cause (the creator).

It's not psychological. Your experiences are real just as are mine. It's not delusional. We both are sane. (Right?)

So, logically, not by experience, can you explain how the relationship between the patterns of the universe equal to god's existence?

If it's a mystery and there are no facts to back it up because it's a mystery, why do you believe it?

If you base your belief in god on experience rather than facts, how are your beliefs justified or do you look into it (you can say yes or no) to see if what you believe aligns with what is fact? (or do you, like my friend told me, do not want to know?)​

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

I try to verify my experience with any known facts, just in case.

 

[Valjean]

I may have some beliefs not based on verifiable facts, but I wouldn't expect anyone else to believe them.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Another thought came into my head. My eye attacks or experiences are real. I looked into finding out the cause and the evidence to support that cause. Then, when no doctor could find any cause but assumptions and synchronicity, I gave up. My eye doctors and Department of the Blind are addressing my symptoms and how to live with them.

My neurologist is the "atheist" in this situation. She tells me, "you gone to all these doctors, and they say there is nothing wrong with you" (you told us all these evidence but that doesn't equal to god's existence). Now I'm at the point of trying to explain how my symptoms are real... (how god exists)

Are they (my symptoms) real because they have a cause? Or do they need a cause for them to be real?​

Outside of the spiritual realm, doctors don't know a lot of things; however, so far we know, they still have tangible causes regardless if it's mental health oriented or physical health. Spirituality is a combination of mental and physical health. We aren't aliens. We just describe our experiences in ways that may seem mystical to some but if dumbed down, it's common sense and very simple to another.

My question to compare it to myself. Is not being able to explain the patterns of the universe (symptoms) to the creator's existence (cause) outside of spiritual jargon the same as trying to explain why I was almost going half blind a year or so ago, explaining the symptoms, but not being able to relate it to any cause?

Or can your cause be explained to the patterns of the universe unlike mine, that cannot be explained by the patterns of my vision fluctuation?​

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I try to verify my experience with any known facts, just in case.

Thank you. What do you consider facts?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I may have some beliefs not based on verifiable facts, but I wouldn't expect anyone else to believe them.

Even though they are not verifiable, what, would you say, makes them facts? Wouldn't all facts be verifiable even if humans can't do so at the present moment?

 

[Valjean]

Even though they are not verifiable, what, would you say, makes them facts? Wouldn't all facts be verifiable even if humans can't do so at the present moment?

Did I call them facts?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Did I call them facts?

No. I did. I don't have hidden meanings in my questions and comments and no sarcasm.

What I mean is...

Even though they are not verifiable, what, would you say, makes them facts? (Question to you not restating something you did not say) Wouldn't all facts be verifiable even if humans can't do so at the present moment?​

If you "have some beliefs not based on verifiable facts, but I wouldn't expect anyone else to believe them."

Even if the facts are not verified, how would you say they are facts without verification that they are? Or... are facts still facts even though they don't need to be verified?

Does it take verification to make a fact, a fact?​

On that note, my original question. If you have some beliefs that are not based on verifiable facts, going back to my OP, why do you believe in them? Is it experience? A hunch? or is there something else other than facts that make it worth your belief in them?

 

[Thief]

fact.....stars overhead
fact....earth beneath my feet
fact...life in abundance

nothing moves without something to set it to motion

there is a God

 

[Desert Snake]

'Belief', in the religious usage, means an adherence, a position. This is used regardless of evidence for something, or lack thereof.

​

 

[Unveiled Artist]

@syncretic The other post about the promise of suppositions, I can't reply to. It has an error. I don't know what you mean by that but in general:

That and my OP was comparing the patterns of the universe and the existence of god by using the example fact vs. experience. Just rereading it.

I am partial sighted. There is no cause but there are symptoms. The doctors can see it but they can't explain it. I know there has to be some explanation. We may not know it, but there are real reasons behind why I can't see fully. They are not based on what I say-that's subjective. It's based on what they find on their test-those are facts.

Going by that light...

If you base your belief in god on experience rather than facts, how are your beliefs justified or do you look into it (you can say yes or no) to see if what you believe aligns with what is fact? (or do you, like my friend told me, do not want to know?)​

Let's use my eye condition. If my partial sighted is based on symptoms but not physical detected causes how are my symptoms justified other than what I tell the doctors and what they pick up on their instruments? Should I trust my experiences-my symptoms? If so, what are my symptoms based on for me to trust it other than I can't see? I see the Department of the Blind and check up with my doctors. I can be happy with just not seeing like many people do. However, unlike many partial or blind people, they can't find a cause to fix my flucuating vision. So, I am trying to accept what I can't see.

Not all people just accept what that they can't see. If they have symptoms and they continue to have them, some time they'd want answers to function as they use to. If it is possible (which one one said it wasnt), they will keep asking "how are my symptoms justified so I know if they are real or not? How do I trust my symptoms as real if the doctor is telling me there is no cause to back it up?" Are their facts? Sure. They see it on my eye chart. It tells the doctors nothing.

If I translated it to the patterns of the universe, how do you know the patterns of the universe is caused by god if you based it on facts (the cause from the eye chart) rather than the symptoms (the experiences, hunches, and spirit you feel that makes you believe its true practice or not)?

 

[Desert Snake]

If it's experience, how do you justify it or do you go with the flow regardless if it is a fact or not?

That's up to the individual. Words like 'fact' are problematic when trying to ascertain a persons reasoning, without a bunch of context. It just isn't precise.

Is it important to you that it needs to be a fact?

That would depend on what it is. I am going to assume an importance that is not just 'I like this church ceremony', or something, yeah

Does your experience override fact?

How could an experience override fact? The answer to this is 'yes', however, again, this word 'fact', is messing up your questions.

Isn't that like saying, "my experience when I solved two and two and got six is right than the fact that two and two actually equals four"?

No, unless you arrived at an obviously incorrect conclusion. If the 'experience', whatever it is, is not believable, then why would you even consider it?

Do I trust my experiences or the facts of what my experiences are based on?

That's up to you. I don't know what experiences you have had, and I have no idea what you consider 'facts', or how you arrive at them.

My OP: If your experiences are based on facts, what are they? If not, how do you find worth in your experiences or does it matter what is real and what is not?

The 'facts' thing is messing up the question again. You can't dismiss experiences solely because of some pre-conceived facts. That means that you would never have any experiences worth acknowledging, in the first place.

I actually don't get all my facts from experiences. I know two plus two is four before I even tried the problem out for myself. Many people are told and believe god exists before they actually go deeper when they are older and realize that he actually does or does not. The fact that the earth revolves around the sun doesn't need my experience of watching the sunset and sunrise for it to be true/fact.

Ok

Point So, I believe religion is in the same category as everything else on earth. It's not special in that regards. If we believe in something (unless imaginary), I would assume it would be based on facts. Even if we consider experiences facts, how do we define them as facts sense they are not universal like the earth and sun?

Anyway, I asked a lot of questions. I hope you get my multiple points.​

Yes, we've encountered this position before, elsewhere. I would say that it's an individual thing.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Guys, I'm trying to stick with the patterns of the universe. I value experiences, but my religious experiences are based on facts. I value this because experiences (like my eye symptoms) can go up and down, be imaginary, and so forth like beliefs. So, it's not something I would trust completely. However, I know the earth revolves around the sun and the sun gives me energy. I know that when I make a action there is a reaction.

I know this about my faith. Not all faiths are like that (not just Christianity). So, are the patterns of the universe based on a person's experiences that it is? What are those experiences based on? It has to be universal rather than subjective. Subjective is true to the person; but, I'm asking objectively. I know religion is objective or it would be all imaginary. It's how people interpret it that X person sees it as subjective while Y sees it as objective.

 

[psychoslice]

fact.....stars overhead
fact....earth beneath my feet
fact...life in abundance

nothing moves without something to set it to motion

there is a God

Yes, and therefore there is no god.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Fact as something whether an idea or tangible that can be known by everyone and is not depended on people in order for it to exist (say the earth around the sun).

That's up to the individual. Words like 'fact' are problematic when trying to ascertain a persons reasoning, without a bunch of context. It just isn't precise.

I can't think of another word.

How could an experience override fact? The answer to this is 'yes', however, again, this word 'fact', is messing up your questions.

I say experiences are based on facts rather than experiences are facts. That's probably why we're differing in views. My experiences and beliefs can flip flop. If they are based on concrete facts, which they are, then whatever believes and experiences I have, if it doesn't hold up to the facts-reality which is my religion-in my opinion, those experiences unless they help me some way are not beneficial. I disregard them.

That's me, though. Just understanding other people's view and how they relate experience and fact but even more so the patterns of the universe with god based on fact rather than experience.

No, unless you arrived at an obviously incorrect conclusion. If the 'experience', whatever it is, is not believable, then why would you even consider it?

My whole point of the OP. I wish I could tighten it up but I'm a wannabe writer.

That's up to you. I don't know what experiences you have had, and I have no idea what you consider 'facts', or how you arrive at them.

It's a rhetorical or generalized question. I didn't put it wasn't about me personally, sorry.

The 'facts' thing is messing up the question again. You can't dismiss experiences solely because of some pre-conceived facts. That means that you would never have any experiences worth acknowledging, in the first place.

It's not dismissing experiences. Just wondering what each person's experiences are based on or whether they belief or practice based on experiences rather than the cause thereof.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

fact.....stars overhead
fact....earth beneath my feet
fact...life in abundance

nothing moves without something to set it to motion

there is a God

Thank you. I don't see the connection. What are you basing this connection on? (If it's experience, then what is it based on? If it's fact, how do you define it to make sense? If it's a hunch, or gut feeling, where did that come from? If these are personal, just press the skip button.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

It's not psychological. Your experiences are real just as are mine. It's not delusional. (Right?)

Depends what you mean by "delusional". Is it about seeing stuff differently, or seeing stuff roughly the same and coming to different conclusions?

 

[Desert Snake]

Guys, I'm trying to stick with the patterns of the universe. I value experiences, but my religious experiences are based on facts. I value this because experiences (like my eye symptoms) can go up and down, be imaginary, and so forth like beliefs. So, it's not something I would trust completely. However, I know the earth revolves around the sun and the sun gives me energy. I know that when I make a action there is a reaction.

I know this about my faith. Not all faiths are like that (not just Christianity). So, are the patterns of the universe based on a person's experiences that it is? What are those experiences based on? It has to be universal rather than subjective. Subjective is true to the person; but, I'm asking objectively. I know religion is objective or it would be all imaginary. It's how people interpret it that X person sees it as subjective while Y sees it as objective.

Subjective and objective are bad words to use for this idea. Subjectivity is what you're dealing with, in regards to how we formulate our personal beliefs,
We formulate 'personal objective truths', beliefs,, /it's always subjective,

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Thank you. What do you consider facts?

Something that can be verified externally. I can experience a car crash, but it's only a fact the car crashed if a real car engaged in a real crash.

 

[Aiviu]

God's Existence? Counter question: What separates us from the animal world? Answer this correctly and you know the answer.