What's Your Reason for Believing God Exists?

[Link]

Mine isn't really a claim. I'm not saying that I know that I don't have a soul, just that there is no reason I can see (or that you've supplied) to think that I do. Same with god(s). And I don't hate seeing the truth - maybe you do....?

Burden of proof (philosophy) - Wikipedia

It's a claim. A person can say they don't know if moon is made of cheese or not, but their "I don't know" needs more elaboration. To me, a soul is what I am, and so I don't need to explain it to a person who denies it. I just have to witness myself.

Of course, if I'm trying to convince an atheist, I might go a different avenue, but for personal belief, there is no need. My soul and God being witnessed through signs in the self, are sufficient.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Trust in what we hope to be so IS FAITH. If we really knew something to be so, we wouldn't need to trust that it is so. We wouldn't need faith. The problem is that our "knowledge" is not really knowledge. It's presumption based on our limited experiences, and on our reasoned assessment of probability. Neither of which can provide certainty. So the 'difference' that you're trying to point out here is a difference of relative surety. And relative surety is very subjective.

If I ignore all the things I don't know and focus only on the things I think I do know, I will be able to move through life with relative surety; right up until the unknown/unknowable happens, and kills me. My surety will have been an illusion that worked well for me until it didn't. Lots of people live like this, while many others understand that this surety is an illusion. They understand that we can drive to the grocery store 500 times without a problem, and be killed on the 501st. One man says, "it's 500 to 1 odds, I'll take it!" While another man says, "it's 50/50 each trip, and that's scary!". And this tends to diminish their 'surety' in life. It also tends to diminish their faith in their own ability to reason probability every time someone dies on the way to the grocery store. And for all those people, the possibility of a benevolent overseer becomes a very useful concept. They can regain some of that trust, and some sense of surety, by placing it in this ideal of the omnipotent benevolent overseer. You may not feel any need for such an ideal because you retain your surety in your own ability to reason probability. But on that 501st trip to the grocery store, your surety will not change the "improbable" unfortunate result.

We're really all operating on faith. It's just a question of what we are placing that faith in, and how it is helping us negotiate the many unknowns of life as a human.

Sorry, I still think you are misusing the terms we use to describe our experiences. I've only ever had trust in myself, others, and whatever material objects we might have used in our activities - knowing something as to how they should perform. Faith seems something else to me.

 

[syo]

Who created GODS?

Gods themselves. Gods choose their own avatar.

 

[PureX]

Sorry, I still think you are misusing the terms we use to describe our experiences. I've only ever had trust in myself, others, and whatever material objects we might have used in our activities - knowing something as to how they should perform. Faith seems something else to me.

Faith is 'trust in action'. It's trusting in an idea enough to be willing to act on it: ... ideas like 'reasoned probability', or 'logical extrapolation'. And if we trust in these ideas persistently enough, we tend forget that they are just ideas, and that they can fail us. We begin to think they are a 'reality' unto themselves, and can be taken as a surety.

It's why I admonish against "belief". Believing in these ideas makes us blind to the fact that they are just ideas. And that they can fail us at any time. And this is true whether the idea is 'God' or science, or one's own ability to reason. We're all living by faith, whether we can accept this or not. Because none of us are omniscient. Not even close. None of us really knows what's going on or what will happen the next moment. We just like to pretend we do so we won't have to live with so much uncertainty. Unfortunately, our pretenses tend to blind us, and make us even more vulnerable than we already are.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Faith is 'trust in action'. It's trusting in an idea enough to be willing to act on it: ... ideas like 'reasoned probability', or 'logical extrapolation'. And if we trust in these ideas persistently enough, we tend forget that they are just ideas, and that they can fail us. We begin to think they are a 'reality' unto themselves, and can be taken as a surety.

It's why I admonish against "belief". Believing in these ideas makes us blind to the fact that they are just ideas. And that they can fail us at any time. And this is true whether the idea is 'God' or science, or one's own ability to reason. We're all living by faith, whether we can accept this or not. Because none of us are omniscient. Not even close. None of us really knows what's going on or what will happen the next moment. We just like to pretend we do so we won't have to live with so much uncertainty. Unfortunately, our pretenses tend to blind us, and make us even more vulnerable than we already are.

Trust and faith might be used interchangeably but not for me. I'll leave faith to others.

 

[Magical Wand]

When the Light catches you.
In that tiny moment, you are transformed.

Okay. Got it.

Sure, that's true. It's possible to conceive almost anything. Being able to conceive something naturally does not mean it's real.

That's not pertinent. You said you had the conviction that something beyond the physical exists and this means meaning and purpose obtain. I simply asked how one thing follows from the other given that it doesn't seem obvious the physical beings or substances must be interested in human beings. So, I don't have to burden to prove indifferent spiritual beings are real since I didn't make this claim. I simply pointed out this possibility to show your non-sequitur.

it's not sufficient as you noted. But that's not my belief which is fundamentally non-dual, what in the East is called Advaita.

I see. But then your conviction is not simply that something existed beyond the physical world, but that something non-physical and interested in humans exist beyond the physical world. Thanks for the clarification.

 

[Magical Wand]

It has nothing to do with Pascal's wager. It has to do with the immediate possibilities of trusting in an idea. For example, every day you climb into an automobile you are trusting in the idea that everyone else on the road will follow the traffic laws, and enable you to arrive at your destination safely. You don't actually know this will happen, but you trust that it will because you like the benefits of using auto-transportation. This is an act of faith, on your part, based on the possibility and the reward. And we humans engage in these acts of faith all the time.

Many humans choose to trust in the idea of a benevolent God even though they can't know this to be so because they want the benefits that come from it. Benefits like the sense of peace, gratitude, and positive purpose that comes from living with such an idea. And keep in mind that none of us knows that this is NOT the case. So that trust is being placed in a very real possibility. Not some impossible fantasy.

I'm not sure what I'll say is relevant, but I think there is a big difference between these two "acts of faith." That's simply because we have many examples of people reaching their destination safely and so on (we have experienced it directly). So, even though that (i.e., reaching the destination safely) may not happen today or tomorrow, we have reason to think it will since it has happened several times before to us and millions of people. That's not controversial at all.

In the case of God, however, the non-theist doesn't have this knowledge. There is no reason to trust the idea since there are no examples of that in reality to even show that God is real. The non-theist knows the traffic laws and its confirmed benefits, but where is the confirmation in the case of God? I want you to explain that to people reading these exchanges. Thanks.

 

[Etritonakin]

The physical universe, earth, atoms, DNA, life, etc. are like intricate music as opposed to simply noise and natural patterns.

We see from our own examples -even within what is already in motion -that creativity must arise before certain levels of purposeful- as opposed to functional- complexity, organization and change to the otherwise-inevitable can happen. Psychological beings must also precede and produce that which specifically satisfies their needs -changes to present nature which are indicative of such.

Most basic nature -pre-universe nature -would be similar. It must logically have become creative and self aware before the universe could be initiated -especially as it perfectly satisfies the logical specific needs of a pre-existing psyhology/psychological being.
We generally believe the opposite to be true -that creativity required the universe -due to automation -which we mistake for purely natural development and an absence of creativity.

An even greater indicator is the fact that the Earth and universe satisfy our own overall psychology and physical needs -without any input from us. Sure... We might have to plant a seed, but we don't have to design yummy fruit, veggies, beautiful colorful and fragrant plants, etc. We might -in our present form - have to design a boat or space ship to go "out there" -but out there already exists and fills us with awe and wonder at the possibilities -not to mention it awaits only finishing touches.
An original would have developed from natural energies or "food", if you will, but not the sort of complex system we inhabit -and from pure inevitability rather than such purposefully-complex automation. "Out there" to an original would first be an idea -a concept which needed to be designed and made from most simple raw materials.

Then there is the fact that we are mass-produced multiples -and the question of why there was necessarily only one original -will try to address that later.

Finally..... There is the fact that -though we are eager to go "out there" -we are confined to this pebble until we newbies can get our act together. Why go elsewhere before we learn to not ruin planets and destroy ourselves?

Someone has been thinking about us for a looooooong time.

 

[PureX]

Trust and faith might be used interchangeably but not for me. I'll leave faith to others.

Why? The reason for the two different terms is to designate the difference between passive and active acceptance. "Trust" being the passive acceptance of an unproven idea, and "faith" being the active acceptance of an unproven idea. When I put my "trust" in an idea, I am allowing it to stand as true, unassisted by me. Whereas if I put my "faith" in an idea, I am choosing to act on it's behalf. I can't think of a single logical reason to be biased against the use of either of these terms. Only to be biased, perhaps, in favor of using them properly.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Why? The reason for the two different terms is to designate the difference between passive and active acceptance. "Trust" being the passive acceptance of an unproven idea, and "faith" being the active acceptance of an unproven idea. When I put my "trust" in an idea, I am allowing it to stand as true, unassisted by me. Whereas if I put my "faith" in an idea, I am choosing to act on it's behalf. I can't think of a single logical reason to be biased against the use of either of these terms. Only to be biased, perhaps, in favor of using them properly.

Well for me at least, trust is based on knowledge, and where I have such trust I usually have substantial knowledge too - like knowing about equipment that has been tested and conforms to certain standards (upon such my life depending), observing my own and my mates' abilities (hence having trust in their acting as well as I might in similar circumstances), and to much else too in the wilder world. I think faith should be reserved for the things we don't tend to have so much knowledge about, if any.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

But alas, my ideas are complete bunk

You're on the right track... keep going! Haha...

 

[PureX]

Well for me at least, trust is based on knowledge,...

Actually, it's based on 'knowledge as evidence', not knowledge in itself. You are extrapolating from your knowledge, which is why you have to trust that the conclusion the evidence is leading you to is accurate. If you KNEW the conclusion was accurate, you wouldn't need to "trust in it". You would already be certain. But logical certainty is a very rare condition for we humans, unless we are lying to ourselves. In which case what we're claiming as certainty is really just a pretense of certainty.

So the real issue here is one of "evidence". How much do we have, how much do we need, how are we determining it to be valid evidence, and by what course of reasoning are we drawing our chosen conclusions from it? Just blindly pretending that OUR evidence is valid, is enough, and that it leads us to only THIS conclusion is an example of that blind pretense of surety I mentioned. And a lot of people engage in this kind of blind pretense. They "believe in" it. Meaning that they have determined themselves to be right, whether they are right, or not.

Faith, as oppose to trust, gains it's "evidence" from acting on a chosen possibility and seeing what results as it's "evidence", as opposed to seeking this pretense of surety based on "reasoned evidence" in advance of taking action. Faith is "acting as if" to see if the "as if" results. Whereas trust requires it's conviction in advance of the action. I think this is the main difference between faith and trust. I also think we humans engage in both of these methods of behavior, routinely, regardless of our declared biases against one or the other.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Actually, it's based on 'knowledge as evidence', not knowledge in itself. You are extrapolating from your knowledge, which is why you have to trust that the conclusion the evidence is leading you to is accurate. If you KNEW the conclusion was accurate, you wouldn't need to "trust in it". You would already be certain. But logical certainty is a very rare condition for we humans, unless we are lying to ourselves. In which case what we're claiming as certainty is really just a pretense of certainty.

Oh come on. I do allow for circumstances and knowing that all humans can be fallible, but likewise I do trust in the various processes we, as a civilisation, have put in place to ensure we can trust so many things. That's one of the many advantages of living in a reasonably modern and industrialised country - we tend to trust things because we know they are repeatable.

So the real issue here is one of "evidence". How much do we have, how much do we need, how are we determining it to be valid evidence, and by what course of reasoning are we drawing our chosen conclusions from it? Just blindly pretending that OUR evidence is valid, is enough, and that it leads us to only THIS conclusion is an example of that blind pretense of surety I mentioned. And a lot of people engage in this kind of blind pretense. They "believe in" it. Meaning that they have determined themselves to be right, whether they are right, or not.

Faith, as oppose to trust, gains it's "evidence" from acting on a chosen possibility and seeing what results as it's "evidence", as opposed to seeking this pretense of surety based on "reasoned evidence" in advance of taking action. Faith is "acting as if" to see if the "as if" results. Whereas trust requires it's conviction in advance of the action. I think this is the main difference between faith and trust. I also think we humans engage in both of these methods of behavior, routinely, regardless of our declared biases against one or the other.

Still can't see faith other than as purely being what one might accept as evidence but others might not, whereas most people would accept the trust as I define such.

 

[PureX]

Oh come on. I do allow for circumstances and knowing that all humans can be fallible, but likewise I do trust in the various processes we, as a civilisation, have put in place to ensure we can trust so many things. That's one of the many advantages of living in a reasonably modern and industrialised country - we tend to trust things because we know they are repeatable.

Still can't see faith other than as purely being what one might accept as evidence but others might not, whereas most people would accept the trust as I define such.

Some people want the "evidence" up front (trust universal repeatability) and some people accept the evidence that results (act on faith). Both of these methods work, unless/until they don't. And we are all employing them both in our lives, regularly; ideological biases not withstanding.

 

[Liesl Hallman]

I invite you to give an explanation (not too extensive, btw) of why you believe God (viz., the non-material creator of the cosmos) exists. Let's have a discussion about the topic.

I didn’t know I needed a reason but I always do believe this

 

[PureX]

I didn’t know I needed a reason but I always do believe this

Atheists have no reason or belief of their own; just a desire to attack and destroy everyone else's. So they need for you to put yours forward to give them something to destroy. It's how they convince themselves that atheism is the superior 'ism' without having any actual reason for or belief in it.

 

[Wildswanderer]

I invite you to give an explanation (not too extensive, btw) of why you believe God (viz., the non-material creator of the cosmos) exists. Let's have a discussion about the topic.

Initially, maybe I believed because I was taught he exists. But eventually it was because I have felt his presence multiple times and he has spoken to me in multiple ways.

 

[Magical Wand]

I didn’t know I needed a reason but I always do believe this

Well, we generally need reasons to believe. Otherwise we would just believe in all kinds of pseudo-science or even Tarot reading. We might believe that magicians are actually doing magic instead of tricks. Or we might believe that voodoo works, or that psychics can really talk to the dead and see the future.

That's obviously absurd. We always ask for reasons to believe. If the psychic can't provide reasons, we simply dismiss his funny claims.

So, the question is why do you think this should be different in the case of your religious beliefs?

 

[Magical Wand]

Initially, maybe I believed because I was taught he exists. But eventually it was because I have felt his presence multiple times and he has spoken to me in multiple ways.

Okay. Thanks for sharing your reasons with people here.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

It has nothing to do with Pascal's wager. It has to do with the immediate possibilities of trusting in an idea. For example, every day you climb into an automobile you are trusting in the idea that everyone else on the road will follow the traffic laws, and enable you to arrive at your destination safely. You don't actually know this will happen, but you trust that it will because you like the benefits of using auto-transportation. This is an act of faith, on your part, based on the possibility and the reward. And we humans engage in these acts of faith all the time.

Many humans choose to trust in the idea of a benevolent God even though they can't know this to be so because they want the benefits that come from it. Benefits like the sense of peace, gratitude, and positive purpose that comes from living with such an idea. And keep in mind that none of us knows that this is NOT the case. So that trust is being placed in a very real possibility. Not some impossible fantasy.

Nicely put.