What is the rationale for your belief in the existence of a superfluous God?

[Gambit]

My belief in a possible god or cluster of gods isn't connected in any way with the fact that I see nothing in this world requiring it.

Then your belief appears to be completely irrational.

By the way, the question I posed in the OP is addressed to monotheists, not polytheists.

 

[McBell]

I believe you're projecting.

You are free to believe whatever nonsense you like.
In fact, you have shown it in this very thread.

 

[Gambit]

I rarely respond to threads like these because I don't normally like to defend my faith in a debate style.

But for me and for many pagans who don't align with traditionalist views view their gods as part of nature itself. They are not the great creators of the universe or of the world but rather representations of natural processes, energies and concepts of the world. So a god need not be all powerful or a creator of the universe to be believed in or worshiped.

The question I asked in the OP was addressed to monotheists, not polytheists.

 

[Quintessence]

The question I asked in the OP was addressed to monotheists, not polytheists.

Many of us would appreciate it if you stated these things up front instead of three pages into the thread. Perhaps you should create threads in "same faith" debates in the future and start the title with "Monotheists Only."

 

[Gambit]

Thank you for the clarification

You're welcome.

[Off topic: Some of the post resurrection scripture suggests both a fully physical and beyond physical Jesus - (God in my world view)].

I agree. This is off topic. But I am fairly confident that mainstream Christianity holds that Jesus' "physicality" concerns his humanity, not his divinity.

 

[Jumi]

Then your belief appears to be completely irrational.

If I agree with you here then the same applies to your belief.

By the way, the question I posed in the OP is addressed to monotheists, not polytheists.

I don't have proof of either, which is why I said one or many. It's the same to me. If they exist, who am I to define them? Do you believe that polytheists can't believe in your God?

 

[Gambit]

The logic still does not follow here, though thank you for clarifying what you meant by "superfluous." If the logic somehow works for you, by all means hold to it, but please do other theists the courtesy of respect instead of insulting all of us by claiming our god(s) are "superfluous" because they don't fit your vision of what that word means.

The question I posed in the OP is addressed to monotheists, not polytheists.

 

[Gambit]

Many of us would appreciate it if you stated these things up front instead of three pages into the thread. Perhaps you should create threads in "same faith" debates in the future and start the title with "Monotheists Only."

The term "God" (with a capitalized "G") refers strictly to monotheism. This is common knowledge. And if you were not aware of this fact, then you should now consider yourself educated on the matter.

 

[Quintessence]

The term "God" (with a capitalized "G") refers strictly to monotheism. This is common knowledge.

It's also common that people use the term "God" to reference things other than the one-god of the Abrahamic religions and/or monotheism, as well as welcome input from other types of theism when using that term. It wouldn't kill you to clarify more precisely.

 

[Gambit]

If I agree with you here then the same applies to your belief.

Unlike you, I do not believe God is superfluous. So, no, the same does not apply to me. I haven't completely dispensed with all rationality. My beliefs definitely have some rational basis.

I don't have proof of either, which is why I said one or many. It's the same to me. If they exist, who am I to define them? Do you believe that polytheists can't believe in your God?

If a polytheist believed in the existence God, then he or she would qualify as a monotheist - not a polytheist at all. Either that, or as someone who is seriously flirting with some form of mental disorder.

 

[LuisDantas]

Expecting to see logical sense in other people's beliefs about deities is futile enough.

Attempting to convince other people that they should have a rationale for their belief or else somehow choose to believe in a "necessary" God strikes me as not very informed about what belief is.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

By the way, I know that there are more than a few "believers" on this forum who do not believe that God is metaphysically necessary.

I doubt very much that these people decided to believe in God based on some convoluted philosophical argument. Religious belief is essentially an emotional response, not a rational one.

 

[Jumi]

Unlike you, I do not believe God is superfluous. So, no, the same does not apply to me. I haven't completely dispensed with all rationality. My beliefs definitely have some rational basis.

Except that we don't see anything more rational about a non-superfluous God. It's just what you feel comfortable with.

If a polytheist believed in the existence God, then he or she would qualify as a monotheist - not a polytheist at all.

Interesting thought, though it does not follow logically. If we accept this definition, what do you think of the trinity, angels and Satan?

 

[Gambit]

I doubt very much that these people decided to believe in God based on some convoluted philosophical argument. Religious belief is essentially an emotional response, not a rational one.

I see. So, is your Buddist-inclinations completely irrational?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I see. So, is your Buddist-inclinations completely irrational?

My Buddhist practice doesn't involve much belief. But are you saying that you decided to believe in God based purely on philosophical arguments?

 

[Gambit]

Attempting to convince other people that they should have a rationale for their belief or else somehow choose to believe in a "necessary" God strikes me as not very informed about what belief is.

I guess we can assume that your belief in 'Buddhism' is a completely irrational one.

 

[LuisDantas]

I guess we can assume that your belief in 'Buddhism' is a completely irrational one.

I do not believe in Buddhism as such. I use it.

I see no point or purpose in learning a religious doctrine and passively "believing" in it.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I guess we can assume that your belief in 'Buddhism' is a completely irrational one.

Good luck with that.

 

[Gambit]

My Buddhist practice doesn't involve much belief.

Then why are you practicing it? Most people engage in some kind of practice (religious or otherwise) to achieve some kind of objective.

Śraddhā (श्रद्धा, shraddhaa) is a Sanskrit term loosely translated as "faith", which is important in Hindu, Jain, and Buddhist literature and teachings. (source: Wikipedia: Sraddha)

But are you saying that you decided to believe in God based purely on philosophical arguments?

My belief in God has a rational basis. (I believe faith and reason work in tandem.)

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Then why are you practicing it? Most people engage in some kind of practice (religious or otherwise) to achieve some kind of objective.

Because it's a fascinating process of discovery. Spiritual practice doesn't have to involve taking on a load of religious beliefs.