I believe God exists

[sindex.1983]

...and here's why! I wrote this.

God is hidden. Thus nothing can prove He exists. But if you marry faith to reason, you can determine He does exist through inference, like a problem of Euclid. It is simple; everything in manifestation has a cause, and thus, following the chain of causality to its source, we must arrive at a First Cause. Bingo, we have arrived. However, to the untrained eye, this only seems to indicate that everything had a beginning: Not so! For there to be a First Cause in a realm of causality, it must be a Causeless Cause, thus, manifestation/causation must have sprung out of somewhere that does not function in such a linear way as our existence does. In other words, everything emerged from nothing, which is the same as saying it arrived from the infinite - these two ideas combined show us that an infinite source that is hidden from us produced existence. If that's not going to indicate God to you, what is?

The mistake most people will make at this point will go, "That still doesn't make sense! How do you know that a creator exists and made everything!" Simple: It was created. Therefore there is a creator. Just because you can't and don't understand that creator, does not mean that He is not there, hidden for ever and ever; and just because you cannot ascribe Him any particular qualities directly, does not mean you cannot look at His creation for an Order about it, a design, an infinite series of patterns interlaced to maintain the stability of the Cosmos. You can examine the patterns in Nature to gain a clearer sense of that not only that the creator is ultimately infinitely loving, but you can also start to grasp that there is a meaning and intended purpose for your life here on Earth as well! Only a blind fool would not agree that God exists, in light of this! And yet, search over what I have written - where did I provide you with proof, or concrete evidence? I didn't.

There is one loophole to be taken care of before I leave this - how do you know there was a First Cause? Perhaps all causality stretches back infinitely! If you marry faith to reason again, it becomes a simple matter: We must find a pattern in nature that pervades practically everything, then apply it to causality. For instance, every 'thing' we distinguish as its own object has a beginning, that is to say, is created and comes into being at some point; this is regardless of the fact it is also comprised of infinite individual pieces into which it can be subdivided (atoms, quarks, etc.). The very concept of beginning itself is rooted in our perception that something can emerge from something else and be totally distinct from its origin; a baby is not its mother, and yet it took form, grew inside her, and was birthed. Thus, since all things in finite manifestation have beginnings, causality itself, which is a limited and finite concept, must too have a beginning. Therefore, we have a First Cause, and once again, we are enriched by the knowledge and understanding - not just the belief - that yes, there is a God...



[FONT=&quot]...my view actually incorporates atheism. Let me explain how I am an 'atheistic theist' and a 'theistic atheist':[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]God is hidden, utterly unknowable. Thus, in the realm of manifestation - existence - God does not exist. Therefore, atheism is true.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]BUT, refer to what I wrote previously in this post: Through inference, you CAN identify there is a creator. Therefore, theism is true.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]So, you might ask, what is the difference from being an atheist and from believing that there is God (even if He doesn't exist!) - other than seeming irrationality?[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]It's simple - it's the effect it has on your mind. If you believe in a Godless universe, not only are you in error from being utterly lopsided to one side of the fence, you are actually removing the foundation by which you view all creation in your mind. What this means is, you float in an amoral void because you have nothing to base your beliefs on, other than preference and whimsy. It destroys you inside: Pure atheism leads to self-deception, egotism, confusion, ignorance - evils of the worst kind.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]HOWEVER, being totally in favor of the other side of the fence - that of Knowing God, is poisoned too: You have basically used faith to imagine up an idea of a creator (usually someone else's idea, from a book such as the Bible), an image of the creator that is basically just an anthropomorphic fallacy (a reflection of you, your ideas, your fears). So in ascribing God ANY specific qualities without basis, you have only started to worship a vain idol in your mind that you refer to as God - thus, a blind theist is no better than an atheist. BOTH views lead to the 'evils' I just referred to in the last paragraph.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]You have to recognize God is real, but he 'does not exist' - He is hidden from finite comprehension, because He is infinite. I have really said nothing here, and yet in some way you will begin to understand what I am talking about.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The only way to infer - not KNOW - that God has some qualities, is to examine patterns in his creation - thoroughly - before arriving at any working theories. Not conclusions. An unknowable God will always remain unknowable.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]For example, I can theorize that God is a loving creator, not because I ascribe him human qualities - I do not - but because I recognize throughout all creation a pattern that indicates to me that there is a harmony about things, an Order, a seeming unity between All, from the depths of the oceans, all the way out to the Cosmos.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Another and better theory I can bring forward to you is that God is pure Order - that Chaos is not God's creation, but that God presides over Chaos and through perfect power, shapes it into creation. This idea requires a lot more explaining, but this post is already long enough as it is.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Before you jump to any conclusions about God - such as "why is life so unfair if there is a God?", you must ask yourself - if you really find existence unfair, what exactly were you comparing it to, in order to arrive at this conclusion?[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Food for thought, hope you enjoy[/FONT]

 

[The Sum of Awe]

So, excuse my ignorance, but are you saying God doesn't exist because he is unknowable? As if unknowable things are nonexistent?

 

[sindex.1983]

So, excuse my ignorance, but are you saying God doesn't exist because he is unknowable? As if unknowable things are nonexistent?

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that this infinite being we refer to as God is simultaneously existent AND non-existent, because of the nature of manifestation in a finite universe.

Another way of putting it is that the non-existent portion of God's presence hides him from our finite intellects.

It would be absurd to say that something doesn't exist, simply because you cannot know it.

If you are confused, this is because logic and rationality fail to properly grasp this concept, even though the problem is clearly rooted in the duality of our universe. Its representation to us, therefore, must always appear at least half-irrational. Crazy but true nonetheless

 

[Sha'irullah]

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that this infinite being we refer to as God is simultaneously existent AND non-existent, because of the nature of manifestation in a finite universe.

Another way of putting it is that the non-existent portion of God's presence hides him from our finite intellects.

It would be absurd to say that something doesn't exist, simply because you cannot know it.

If you are confused, this is because logic and rationality fail to properly grasp this concept, even though the problem is clearly rooted in the duality of our universe. Its representation to us, therefore, must always appear at least half-irrational. Crazy but true nonetheless

You are creating an unnecessary paradox here. I myself could easily conclude that god does not exist in any shape or form conceivable as only a person of rationality can see the semantical statement I am making

 

[Valjean]

Everything does not necessarily have a cause.
Those things that do have a cause can be explained by ordinary physics, chemistry, &c, without resorting to magical intervention.

 

[suzy smith]

How can you marry faith to reason? They are opposites.

 

[whoamI]

...and here's why! I wrote this.

God is hidden. Thus nothing can prove He exists. But if you marry faith to reason, you can determine He does exist through inference, like a problem of Euclid. It is simple; everything in manifestation has a cause, and thus, following the chain of causality to its source, we must arrive at a First Cause. Bingo, we have arrived. However, to the untrained eye, this only seems to indicate that everything had a beginning: Not so! For there to be a First Cause in a realm of causality, it must be a Causeless Cause, thus, manifestation/causation must have sprung out of somewhere that does not function in such a linear way as our existence does. In other words, everything emerged from nothing, which is the same as saying it arrived from the infinite - these two ideas combined show us that an infinite source that is hidden from us produced existence. If that's not going to indicate God to you, what is?

The mistake most people will make at this point will go, "That still doesn't make sense! How do you know that a creator exists and made everything!" Simple: It was created. Therefore there is a creator. Just because you can't and don't understand that creator, does not mean that He is not there, hidden for ever and ever; and just because you cannot ascribe Him any particular qualities directly, does not mean you cannot look at His creation for an Order about it, a design, an infinite series of patterns interlaced to maintain the stability of the Cosmos. You can examine the patterns in Nature to gain a clearer sense of that not only that the creator is ultimately infinitely loving, but you can also start to grasp that there is a meaning and intended purpose for your life here on Earth as well! Only a blind fool would not agree that God exists, in light of this! And yet, search over what I have written - where did I provide you with proof, or concrete evidence? I didn't.

There is one loophole to be taken care of before I leave this - how do you know there was a First Cause? Perhaps all causality stretches back infinitely! If you marry faith to reason again, it becomes a simple matter: We must find a pattern in nature that pervades practically everything, then apply it to causality. For instance, every 'thing' we distinguish as its own object has a beginning, that is to say, is created and comes into being at some point; this is regardless of the fact it is also comprised of infinite individual pieces into which it can be subdivided (atoms, quarks, etc.). The very concept of beginning itself is rooted in our perception that something can emerge from something else and be totally distinct from its origin; a baby is not its mother, and yet it took form, grew inside her, and was birthed. Thus, since all things in finite manifestation have beginnings, causality itself, which is a limited and finite concept, must too have a beginning. Therefore, we have a First Cause, and once again, we are enriched by the knowledge and understanding - not just the belief - that yes, there is a God...



[FONT=&quot]...my view actually incorporates atheism. Let me explain how I am an 'atheistic theist' and a 'theistic atheist':[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]God is hidden, utterly unknowable. Thus, in the realm of manifestation - existence - God does not exist. Therefore, atheism is true.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]BUT, refer to what I wrote previously in this post: Through inference, you CAN identify there is a creator. Therefore, theism is true.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]So, you might ask, what is the difference from being an atheist and from believing that there is God (even if He doesn't exist!) - other than seeming irrationality?[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]It's simple - it's the effect it has on your mind. If you believe in a Godless universe, not only are you in error from being utterly lopsided to one side of the fence, you are actually removing the foundation by which you view all creation in your mind. What this means is, you float in an amoral void because you have nothing to base your beliefs on, other than preference and whimsy. It destroys you inside: Pure atheism leads to self-deception, egotism, confusion, ignorance - evils of the worst kind.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]HOWEVER, being totally in favor of the other side of the fence - that of Knowing God, is poisoned too: You have basically used faith to imagine up an idea of a creator (usually someone else's idea, from a book such as the Bible), an image of the creator that is basically just an anthropomorphic fallacy (a reflection of you, your ideas, your fears). So in ascribing God ANY specific qualities without basis, you have only started to worship a vain idol in your mind that you refer to as God - thus, a blind theist is no better than an atheist. BOTH views lead to the 'evils' I just referred to in the last paragraph.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]You have to recognize God is real, but he 'does not exist' - He is hidden from finite comprehension, because He is infinite. I have really said nothing here, and yet in some way you will begin to understand what I am talking about.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The only way to infer - not KNOW - that God has some qualities, is to examine patterns in his creation - thoroughly - before arriving at any working theories. Not conclusions. An unknowable God will always remain unknowable.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]For example, I can theorize that God is a loving creator, not because I ascribe him human qualities - I do not - but because I recognize throughout all creation a pattern that indicates to me that there is a harmony about things, an Order, a seeming unity between All, from the depths of the oceans, all the way out to the Cosmos.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Another and better theory I can bring forward to you is that God is pure Order - that Chaos is not God's creation, but that God presides over Chaos and through perfect power, shapes it into creation. This idea requires a lot more explaining, but this post is already long enough as it is.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Before you jump to any conclusions about God - such as "why is life so unfair if there is a God?", you must ask yourself - if you really find existence unfair, what exactly were you comparing it to, in order to arrive at this conclusion?[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Food for thought, hope you enjoy[/FONT]

I actually understand your purpose. Not your meaning, but yes, your purpose. But even if you did try your best, you can not express or explain what you feel. You can simply just think of it, imagine it, visualize it. Humankind is not yet ready to understand the creator, the unique Architect, or as we know as GOD. I am not saying I am capable of understanding God, or God's work. But at leats I know that I(or we as humankind) There is a perfect cosmos, solar systems, galaxies. There is gravity figthing so bad with fusion within the core of the planets. There are blackholes, there are quasars. We just observe them, but we can't figure out why they exist. Humankind fought hard through thousand or maybe millions of years. We did not have fire back in time, no shoes, no clothings. Just raw meat and endless circulation of hunting. Then our amigdala evolved in time, we started to have logic, we searched for reasons. And now in 2014, we are in a totally different era. There will be time that humankind will reach IQs of 400-500. They will figure out why there are black holes, or where they throw out all the matter they suck in. Maybe through new baby universes as our own universe started with a cute little bang? We just guess now in 2014. But we(I hope I would be there "then"), humankind will reach unimaginable levels of intelligence. I respect everyone's idea, belief and opinion. But what I strongly believe at this point in my life and in 2014, that there is a unique creator with a unique software. One scientific fact is that there can not be any result without a reason. Calling this pattern a coincidence just makes me smile. Because I respect anyone's belief and opinion. Result is this unsolvable universe(s). But we are so so not ready to find out the reason yet. As humankind hunted animals, lived without shelters once, now we are in 2014 and ask ourselves how they did it. And there will be lots of alike questions in the future how we did it now in 2014. So for me it is simple that there is perfect and unique creator. And there are thousands of ways to see it in the nature, in a baby's cute smile, in an ocean's wave, in joy, happiness, pleasure, love etc.. Try to feel it, then when you start realizing it, try to master it.

 

[Windwalker]

[FONT=&quot]The only way to infer - not KNOW - that God has some qualities, is to examine patterns in his creation - thoroughly - before arriving at any working theories. Not conclusions. An unknowable God will always remain unknowable.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]For example, I can theorize that God is a loving creator, not because I ascribe him human qualities - I do not - but because I recognize throughout all creation a pattern that indicates to me that there is a harmony about things, an Order, a seeming unity between All, from the depths of the oceans, all the way out to the Cosmos.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Another and better theory I can bring forward to you is that God is pure Order - that Chaos is not God's creation, but that God presides over Chaos and through perfect power, shapes it into creation. This idea requires a lot more explaining, but this post is already long enough as it is.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Before you jump to any conclusions about God - such as "why is life so unfair if there is a God?", you must ask yourself - if you really find existence unfair, what exactly were you comparing it to, in order to arrive at this conclusion?[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Food for thought, hope you enjoy[/FONT]

An interesting and concerted effort on your part to marry faith and reason, however it seems you fail to do so. Not that it cannot be done, but just not as you suggest. The reason I say so is because everything you present is all, 100% logic arguments. It is all deductive reasoning. Just because through reason you infer "God" does not make this faith, let alone bring faith and reason together. Instead you have a reasoned argument to conclude a view that religion offers, for any number of reasons of its own.

What you say isn't bad, but it leaves you completely with only the mind's reasoning, and at best in a position to take a "leap of faith". But faith itself is not an act of the reasoning mind. It is non-rational (as opposed to irrational). Through non-rational experience, which is outside a mental cognitive process, one is able to apprehend God, as opposed to comprehend God which require a reasoned mind. One can in fact "know" God, but not through reason. One knows God through one's being; firstly intuited through faith (not deductive thought as in your presentation above), and secondly apprehended through direct experience which goes beyond reason. This is the mystical experience.

So where faith and reason are in fact able to be married is in the realization that there are modes of knowing that are not reduced to simple thought processes, but in existential being. Faith intuits, experience knows. And it's a knowing that is not in violation of logic, but like the experience of love, which itself is a non-rational reality, it lives with the rational mind in harmony, not in competition.

 

[Windwalker]

How can you marry faith to reason? They are opposites.

Different, or opposite? Is love opposite to reason?

 

[Sha'irullah]

How can you marry faith to reason? They are opposites.

It is like marrying women to men. They have so little in common yet can unite over something trivial(sex/money)

 

[McBell]

...and here's why! I wrote this.

God is hidden. Thus nothing can prove He exists. But if you marry faith to reason, you can determine He does exist through inference, like a problem of Euclid. It is simple; everything in manifestation has a cause, and thus, following the chain of causality to its source, we must arrive at a First Cause. Bingo, we have arrived. However, to the untrained eye, this only seems to indicate that everything had a beginning: Not so! For there to be a First Cause in a realm of causality, it must be a Causeless Cause, thus, manifestation/causation must have sprung out of somewhere that does not function in such a linear way as our existence does. In other words, everything emerged from nothing, which is the same as saying it arrived from the infinite - these two ideas combined show us that an infinite source that is hidden from us produced existence. If that's not going to indicate God to you, what is?

The mistake most people will make at this point will go, "That still doesn't make sense! How do you know that a creator exists and made everything!" Simple: It was created. Therefore there is a creator. Just because you can't and don't understand that creator, does not mean that He is not there, hidden for ever and ever; and just because you cannot ascribe Him any particular qualities directly, does not mean you cannot look at His creation for an Order about it, a design, an infinite series of patterns interlaced to maintain the stability of the Cosmos. You can examine the patterns in Nature to gain a clearer sense of that not only that the creator is ultimately infinitely loving, but you can also start to grasp that there is a meaning and intended purpose for your life here on Earth as well! Only a blind fool would not agree that God exists, in light of this! And yet, search over what I have written - where did I provide you with proof, or concrete evidence? I didn't.

There is one loophole to be taken care of before I leave this - how do you know there was a First Cause? Perhaps all causality stretches back infinitely! If you marry faith to reason again, it becomes a simple matter: We must find a pattern in nature that pervades practically everything, then apply it to causality. For instance, every 'thing' we distinguish as its own object has a beginning, that is to say, is created and comes into being at some point; this is regardless of the fact it is also comprised of infinite individual pieces into which it can be subdivided (atoms, quarks, etc.). The very concept of beginning itself is rooted in our perception that something can emerge from something else and be totally distinct from its origin; a baby is not its mother, and yet it took form, grew inside her, and was birthed. Thus, since all things in finite manifestation have beginnings, causality itself, which is a limited and finite concept, must too have a beginning. Therefore, we have a First Cause, and once again, we are enriched by the knowledge and understanding - not just the belief - that yes, there is a God...



[FONT=&quot]...my view actually incorporates atheism. Let me explain how I am an 'atheistic theist' and a 'theistic atheist':[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]God is hidden, utterly unknowable. Thus, in the realm of manifestation - existence - God does not exist. Therefore, atheism is true.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]BUT, refer to what I wrote previously in this post: Through inference, you CAN identify there is a creator. Therefore, theism is true.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]So, you might ask, what is the difference from being an atheist and from believing that there is God (even if He doesn't exist!) - other than seeming irrationality?[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]It's simple - it's the effect it has on your mind. If you believe in a Godless universe, not only are you in error from being utterly lopsided to one side of the fence, you are actually removing the foundation by which you view all creation in your mind. What this means is, you float in an amoral void because you have nothing to base your beliefs on, other than preference and whimsy. It destroys you inside: Pure atheism leads to self-deception, egotism, confusion, ignorance - evils of the worst kind.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]HOWEVER, being totally in favor of the other side of the fence - that of Knowing God, is poisoned too: You have basically used faith to imagine up an idea of a creator (usually someone else's idea, from a book such as the Bible), an image of the creator that is basically just an anthropomorphic fallacy (a reflection of you, your ideas, your fears). So in ascribing God ANY specific qualities without basis, you have only started to worship a vain idol in your mind that you refer to as God - thus, a blind theist is no better than an atheist. BOTH views lead to the 'evils' I just referred to in the last paragraph.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]You have to recognize God is real, but he 'does not exist' - He is hidden from finite comprehension, because He is infinite. I have really said nothing here, and yet in some way you will begin to understand what I am talking about.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The only way to infer - not KNOW - that God has some qualities, is to examine patterns in his creation - thoroughly - before arriving at any working theories. Not conclusions. An unknowable God will always remain unknowable.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]For example, I can theorize that God is a loving creator, not because I ascribe him human qualities - I do not - but because I recognize throughout all creation a pattern that indicates to me that there is a harmony about things, an Order, a seeming unity between All, from the depths of the oceans, all the way out to the Cosmos.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Another and better theory I can bring forward to you is that God is pure Order - that Chaos is not God's creation, but that God presides over Chaos and through perfect power, shapes it into creation. This idea requires a lot more explaining, but this post is already long enough as it is.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Before you jump to any conclusions about God - such as "why is life so unfair if there is a God?", you must ask yourself - if you really find existence unfair, what exactly were you comparing it to, in order to arrive at this conclusion?[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Food for thought, hope you enjoy[/FONT]

The Theory of Dark Suckers​

 

[suzy smith]

Different, or opposite? Is love opposite to reason?

Love is an emotion not a belief based on reason.
faith is a belief motivated by emotion not reason [in my opinion]
Reason is [or should be] free of emotion and therefore a good tool for getting to the facts.

 

[Windwalker]

Love is an emotion not a belief based on reason.
faith is a belief motivated by emotion not reason [in my opinion]
Reason is [or should be] free of emotion and therefore a good tool for getting to the facts.

Faith is not the same as wishful thinking, which is motivated by emotions. Faith is best understood, IMO, as an intuition. Faith intuits something that lacks available evidence to corroborate. Experience replaces faith with direct knowing. You don't intuit what you have direct exposure to. Emotions may or may not accompany the presence of faith, just as they may or may not accompany reasoning thoughts. But as far as reason being free of any emotional, or non-rational influence, even if not in the throws of emotion, this is pure and utter myth. The Mr. Spock character is a classic representation of this failure of those possessing human nature to be a completely dispassionate and objective machine.

Also, getting to the facts, does not translate into understanding the truth of something. There is a relationship between truth and facticity, and reason is only one factor in that relationship. Facts must be processed and filtered through the lens of our languages, cultures, personalities, personal experiences, depth or lack thereof, etc. If the world were merely a matter of navigating and integrating binary variables of true/false statements, then we would not be humans.

 

[suzy smith]

Faith is not the same as wishful thinking, which is motivated by emotions. Faith is best understood, IMO, as an intuition. Faith intuits something that lacks available evidence to corroborate. Experience replaces faith with direct knowing. You don't intuit what you have direct exposure to. Emotions may or may not accompany the presence of faith, just as they may or may not accompany reasoning thoughts. But as far as reason being free of any emotional, or non-rational influence, even if not in the throws of emotion, this is pure and utter myth. The Mr. Spock character is a classic representation of this failure of those possessing human nature to be a completely dispassionate and objective machine.

Also, getting to the facts, does not translate into understanding the truth of something. There is a relationship between truth and , and reason is only one factor in that relationship. Facts must be processed and filtered through the lens of our languages, cultures, personalities, personal experiences, depth or lack thereof, etc. If the world were merely a matter of navigating and integrating binary variables of true/false statements, then we would not be humans.

We have really hit on a major difference in our beliefs here. No I am no Mr Spock. But I am Spock like[or try to be] when it comes to processing facts and using my powers of reason. It is not pure and utter myth to think we can not reason without emotion. But what it does take is a lot of self control and determination to push away any tendencies to let emotion cloud out ones judgement.
You and I will never agree on this. In my opinion as soon as you move away from reason and start to be persuaded to believe something by emotion then you are open to believing in the supernatural. [religion]
Intuition is a useful tool but it works deferentially for you and I. My intuition tells me that religion is wrong. And yet I do not let my intuition guide me, I use reasoning based on scientific evidence only to guide me.

A pleasure to debate with you. [beam me up Scotty]

 

[Windwalker]

We have really hit on a major difference in our beliefs here. No I am no Mr Spock. But I am Spock like[or try to be] when it comes to processing facts and using my powers of reason. It is not pure and utter myth to think we can not reason without emotion.

Don't misunderstand me. I do believe in attempting to remove emotions in evaluating something, but it is simply untrue we can ever 100% remove our biases. I'm not advocating making emotional decisions, or something. Not at all.

What I am trying to communicate is that we are emotional creatures, and how we think, how we reason is and will always be influenced, not dictated by, emotions. What you object to, and rightly so, is that we let emotions dictate our reason. In a parallel thread I am in discussion with you on, I spoke of balance. That's key to this. I hope to hear your thoughts to those points as it will bring some light to this better I feel.

But what it does take is a lot of self control and determination to push away any tendencies to let emotion cloud out ones judgement.
You and I will never agree on this.

Wrong. We already agree. I'm simply failing to communicate where I'm taking this line of reasoning. I has to do with a claim of pure objectivity, or a claim of having "facts" that tell you the truth of a thing. We all wear colored glasses. All of us.

In my opinion as soon as you move away from reason and start to be persuaded to believe something by emotion then you are open to believing in the supernatural. [religion]

I agree you must use reason to balance out faith and emotion. I went into length about this in the other thread. But I disagree that religion and its symbolism is about nothing other than irrational emotion. Religion is a whole lot more complex to understand than that assessment of but one tiny facet of it, for some but not all individuals.

Intuition is a useful tool but it works deferentially for you and I. My intuition tells me that religion is wrong.

How so? Explain?

And yet I do lot let my intuition guide me, I use reasoning based on scientific evidence only to guide me.

Einstein didn't. To quote:

“The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science. He to whom the emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand wrapped in awe, is as good as dead —his eyes are closed. The insight into the mystery of life, coupled though it be with fear, has also given rise to religion. To know what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty, which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their most primitive forms—this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true religiousness.”

- Albert Einstein, Living Philosophies
​

Hmmm.... methinks faith, religiousness, the mystical, etc, plays a greater role in our greatest scientific advances than what you give credit to. Those dull faculties, are, our, reasoning. That's the point of this.

A pleasure to debate with you. [beam me up Scotty]

Likewise, I enjoy our discussion. Let's continue.

 

[McBell]

Also, getting to the facts, does not translate into understanding the truth of something. There is a relationship between truth and facticity, and reason is only one factor in that relationship.

Please be so kind as to list off some of the others.

Facts must be processed and filtered through the lens of our languages, cultures, personalities, personal experiences, depth or lack thereof, etc.

Agreed.
but then, so does faith.
And everything else for that matter.

If the world were merely a matter of navigating and integrating binary variables of true/false statements, then we would not be humans.

Yet the world is merely a matter of us navigating true/false statements, experiences, beliefs, wants, etc.

 

[gilligan8914]

Inference must be based on provable facts in order to reach correct conclusions. "God is hidden" is the first unprovable fact you base your inference on. This one statement proves your "proven by inference" statement wrong.

 

[Windwalker]

Please be so kind as to list off some of the others.

All of what goes into the interpretation of data. All of what influences the perceptual reality of the thinker: culture, language, developmental growth, interior realization, states of consciousness, etc. We make assumptions that how we think is somehow magically pure and free from coloration, even our rationalistic and scientific lenses we look through. "If I see it, touch it, taste it, smell it, then it is the truth", etc.

Agreed.
but then, so does faith.
And everything else for that matter.

Yes, and hence why would should not privilege one mode of knowing over the others. Each view must be examined, plumbed, and balanced in a holistic experience of truth.

Yet the world is merely a matter of us navigating true/false statements, experiences, beliefs, wants, etc.

Only when privileging knowledge to propositional truths reasoned through logic, which are themselves relative to the person and the average mode consciousness of their cultures. But the world to the human spirit is not a matter of true/false statements, but of being itself and the light of knowledge that exposes.

 

[suzy smith]

Einstein didn't. To quote:

“The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science. He to whom the emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand wrapped in awe, is as good as dead —his eyes are closed. The insight into the mystery of life, coupled though it be with fear, has also given rise to religion. To know what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty, which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their most primitive forms—this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true religiousness.”

- Albert Einstein, Living Philosophies
​

Hmmm.... methinks faith, religiousness, the mystical, etc, plays a greater role in our greatest scientific advances than what you give credit to. Those dull faculties, are, our, reasoning. That's the point of this.


Likewise, I enjoy our discussion. Let's continue.

Nothing wrong here. Is life a mystery? Obviously it is. Take the question of how the basic building blocks of life, the Amino Acids became the first living cell for example. And art and beauty are all about emotion.
But we all know that Einstein was not talking about a literal personal God when he talked about religion. This statement of his comes up again and again when debating religion.

Lets get back to the basics of our debate here. The evolving human brain is amazing but has its limits. Fore example we can not comprehend astronomical distances. We can talk about 1,000 light years but we can not grasp the meaning of it except in mathematical terms. So we tend to ‘fill in the blanks’ by explaining the unexplainable by letting our emotions do the job. But that is no more than wishful thinking. But to ‘use’ our emotions to empower ourselves to search for the answers is a different matter.
Far better to curb our emotions and work with what we do know. After all there is more than enough ‘scientific’ data to keep us all happy without resorting to our emotions. We use our emotions to love a child, enjoy a sunset or my hubby’s kiss at night.

 

[ArtieE]

[FONT=&quot]It's simple - it's the effect it has on your mind. If you believe in a Godless universe, not only are you in error from being utterly lopsided to one side of the fence, you are actually removing the foundation by which you view all creation in your mind. What this means is, you float in an amoral void because you have nothing to base your beliefs on, other than preference and whimsy. It destroys you inside: Pure atheism leads to self-deception, egotism, confusion, ignorance - evils of the worst kind.[/FONT]

As an atheist I use logic, reason, common sense, empathy, altruism, compassion, conscience, respect for others, self-respect, love, duty, obligation, responsibility, the laws, the Golden Rule, morals, ethics, good upbringing, previous experience, education, advice from more experienced people, concern for the environment etc etc. to determine what is morally right or wrong. None of these require belief in god(s). It is imperative that people without these guidelines at least believe in the Bible and God and follow the commandments and Jesus so they won't ruin it for the rest of us.