Arriving at a Theistic Belief

[Valjean]

Many people have a limited conception of what may constitute reality, and of how others may comprehend and experience it.

True. The physicists and neurologists are in the minority, and, curiously, they tend to be atheist.

 

[Valjean]

I think it always needs evidence and at the minimum the evidence is that he got the idea somehow. Without knowing the idea, person could not believe it. And that the idea exists, is the minimum evidence. In many cases I understand it is not necessary enough.

No, religious belief, or a religious world-view, is instilled very early in life, before children have the capacity for rational thought. it becomes part of one's operating system. No evidence but the assertion of family and friends is needed. It's kinda like Santa Clause, but people don't grow out of it. It's without evidence, and evidence has no effect on it.

 

[Valjean]

Have you bothered to look for any evidence to support this assumption?
?:>?>
'/Disclaimer; this is not an invitation to get googling.

We've been asking for evidence for years, on this forum and many others. We have yet to hear anything that's actual evidence.

 

[DNB]

It's often argued that theists start with a belief in a literal deity (for whatever reasons) then try to find evidence to support it. However I think many people do start with what they consider to be evidence first, even if it's not generally accepted as such.

Why do you believe? Does belief necessarily require evidence? If so, what qualifies?

The origins of life and the universe that we live in, are inexplicable without appealing to an omnipotent and omnipresent, transcendent Being.
Morality and love would be meaningless without a source that embodied these principles, and that imbued that dimension within humankind.
The search for God presupposes His existence, for no other creature on earth or living thing, has either the desire or ability to investigate such an abstract concept.

Man's awe of the universe and the awareness of his moral obligation in order to sustain peace, love and life, came first. Then, the search for the answers came after....

 

[Sheldon]

The origins of life and the universe that we live in, are inexplicable without appealing to an omnipotent and omnipresent, transcendent Being.

Oh look, another of your sweeping unevidenced claims about unevidenced magic being a necessary component of reality.

Morality and love would be meaningless without a source that embodied these principles, and that imbued that dimension within humankind.

Not at all...maybe for you, but my life includes morality and love, and does not need any superstition.

The search for God presupposes His existence,

Finally a grain of truth, yes it almost always does in my experience.

no other creature on earth or living thing, has either the desire or ability to investigate such an abstract concept.

Will you be running away from this claim again when asked to evidence it, as you did last time? Or will you go straight to a dishonest attempt to reversing the burden of proof, as you also ended up doing last time?

Man's awe of the universe and the awareness of his moral obligation in order to sustain peace, love and life, came first. Then, the search for the answers came after....

Deepity...I'd be more impressed if your "moral obligation" hadn't spent page after page espousing the vilest kind of homophobic bigotry, then attempted to justify slavery, simply because it's endorsed in the bible, or if you hadn't failed to condemn the notion of a deity torturing a new born baby to death, out of petty anger at it's conception in an adulterous relationship, while crying crocodile tears over the termination of an insentient blastocyst.

 

[Valjean]

The origins of life and the universe that we live in, are inexplicable without appealing to an omnipotent and omnipresent, transcendent Being.

And here lies the problem. As long as this is believed, progress is impossible.
In reality, science has been investigating this for a long time, and has made considerable progress -- without resort to a magical "explanation."

Morality and love would be meaningless without a source that embodied these principles, and that imbued that dimension within humankind.

No, morality has been hard-wired into the human brain by millions of years of evolution. Coöperation, tribal solidarity and altruism were absolutely essential for the survival of a weak, slow, plains ape on the African Savanna.

The search for God presupposes His existence, for no other creature on earth or living thing, has either the desire or ability to investigate such an abstract concept.

Our capability to imagine a hypothetical has nothing to do with the reality of the hypothetical. Presupposing God; making him axiomatic, obviates any need to demonstrate his existence, and undermines the most crucial point in any discussion of him.

 

[rational experiences]

If a human lives as a human.

You look at each other first. You say same...mutual..species...family.

Relative.

As any human.

Some humans think and live to survive.

Other humans are life's destroyers.

Pretty basic human observed relative human behaviour.

So if you ask why did we begin a God belief,?

Answer is as science anti theoried against existence as evolution in a nature of all pre forms.
.thought about only.

O earth.
Heavens
Nature garden.
Animals.
Human.

Pretty basic you can't coerce me brother sophist.

By your human claim maths O invented me.

As two adult humans equal natural first looked at each other.

Pretty basic human advice for any human who does not lie.

 

[rational experiences]

Then is his man's said O earth.
Heavens.
Nature garden.
Animals.
Humans.

They all existed.

It was not an order of earth O God stone.
Heavens out of stone changed.
Tree nature out of stone changed.
Animals out of stone changed.
Humans out of stone changed.

Who changed stones fusion as a God O planet first?

Men did.

So you attacked all pre living forms didn't you?

Yes he said I did it.

Reason why God themes earth a planet had sex with space immaculate by putting it's gas spirit into its womb.

So you wouldn't get confused about what a man in science did.

 

[RestlessSoul]

True. The physicists and neurologists are in the minority, and, curiously, they tend to be atheist.

Do they tend to be atheist, or is this another unevidenced generalisation about who thinks what and why?

And do you make a distinction between agnosticism, which is a position entirely commensurate with logic and reason, and atheism, which requires accepting an unfalsifiable proposition (that God does not exist)?

 

[Sheldon]

Do they tend to be atheist, or is this another unevidenced generalisation about who thinks what and why?

And do you make a distinction between agnosticism, which is a position entirely commensurate with logic and reason, and atheism, which requires accepting an unfalsifiable proposition (that God does not exist)?

Well in the US and the UK atheism rises sharply among scientists, and is highest among elite scientists. Make of that what you will. Atheism is higher among physicists and highest among biologists.

"A 1998 survey based on a self-selected sample of biological and physical scientists of the National Academy of Sciences in the United States found that 7% believed in the existence of God, 72.2% did not, and 20.8% were agnostic or had doubts."

"Research on this topic began with the eminent US psychologist James H. Leuba and his landmark survey of 1914. He found that 58% of 1,000 randomly selected US scientists expressed disbelief or doubt in the existence of God, and that this figure rose to near 70% among the 400 “greater” scientists within his sample1. Leuba repeated his survey in somewhat different form 20 years later, and found that these percentages had increased to 67 and 85, respectively2.

In 1996, we repeated Leuba's 1914 survey and reported our results in Nature3. We found little change from 1914 for American scientists generally, with 60.7% expressing disbelief or doubt. This year, we closely imitated the second phase of Leuba's 1914 survey to gauge belief among “greater” scientists, and find the rate of belief lower than ever — a mere 7% of respondents.

Leuba attributed the higher level of disbelief and doubt among “greater” scientists to their “superior knowledge, understanding, and experience”2. Similarly, Oxford University scientist Peter Atkins commented on our 1996 survey, “You clearly can be a scientist and have religious beliefs. But I don't think you can be a real scientist in the deepest sense of the word because they are such alien categories of knowledge.”4 Such comments led us to repeat the second phase of Leuba's study for an up-to-date comparison of the religious beliefs of “greater” and “lesser” scientists.

Our chosen group of “greater” scientists were members of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). Our survey found near universal rejection of the transcendent by NAS natural scientists. Disbelief in God and immortality among NAS biological scientists was 65.2% and 69.0%, respectively, and among NAS physical scientists it was 79.0% and 76.3%. Most of the rest were agnostics on both issues, with few believers. We found the highest percentage of belief among NAS mathematicians (14.3% in God, 15.0% in immortality). Biological scientists had the lowest rate of belief (5.5% in God, 7.1% in immortality), with physicists and astronomers slightly higher (7.5% in God, 7.5% in immortality)."

 

[RestlessSoul]

To answer my own question:

(Sorry @Sheldon , I am dubious about trusting any source quoted by you on this subject)

Source: Scientists data from Pew Research Center for the People & the Press survey, conducted in May and June 2009; for complete question wording, see survey topline. General public data from Pew Research Center survey conducted in July 2006; for complete question wording, see survey topline. Numbers may not sum to 100 due to rounding.

 

[Valjean]

Do they tend to be atheist, or is this another unevidenced generalisation about who thinks what and why?

https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-that-93-of-scientists-in-the-US-are-atheists-Why?share=1

Non belief varies with different sciences, but yes. a high percentage of scientist identify as atheist or agnostic. There have been many surveys on this

And do you make a distinction between agnosticism, which is a position entirely commensurate with logic and reason, and atheism, which requires accepting an unfalsifiable proposition (that God does not exist)?

Atheism does not hold that god does not exist, nor is atheism an "unfalsifiable position." Atheism is the epistemic default. A thing is reasonably assumed not to exist, till evidence of its existence comes to light. Atheists have no burden of proof.

 

[RestlessSoul]

https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-that-93-of-scientists-in-the-US-are-atheists-Why?share=1

Non belief varies with different sciences, but yes. a high percentage of scientist identify as atheist or agnostic. There have been many surveys on this
Atheism does not hold that god does not exist, nor is atheism an "unfalsifiable position." Atheism is the epistemic default. A thing is reasonably assumed not to exist, till evidence of its existence comes to light. Atheists have no burden of proof.

It seems perfectly logical to me that agnosticism, not atheism, is the epistemic default; which is why I asked if you made the distinction.

Some interesting observations on that Quora link though.

The figures I quoted above from the PEW research group survey do clearly show that belief in God is lower among the scientific community than the broader population (in the US, that is). It appears that a fraction over half believe either in God or a higher power, though.

So we can't quite conclude, as I think you were implying earlier, that "all the smart people are atheists."

 

[1213]

No, religious belief, or a religious world-view, is instilled very early in life, before children have the capacity for rational thought. ...

I think children have that capacity even before they are born. And the capacity to understand is greatest in children. Adults are not very good, but they know more and have better ability to speak.

 

[Valjean]

It seems perfectly logical to me that agnosticism, not atheism, is the epistemic default; which is why I asked if you made the distinction.

Fair enough, but we need to clarify what we mean by these terms, as I suspect we might be using the terms differently.

Atheism is a lack of belief in God. There may be widely divergent understandings of God among atheists, but the one common, hence definitive, feature, is lack of belief.
Agnosticism is the concept that God's existence is not knowable with any certainty.

 

[Valjean]

I think children have that capacity even before they are born. And the capacity to understand is greatest in children. Adults are not very good, but they know more and have better ability to speak.

That's not what's been found by developmental experts, cognitive scientists, psychologists and neurologists. Simple concepts that seem obvious to us are beyond the capacity of young children, and true abstract thinking doesn't develop till early adolescence.

The ability to come to decisions based on critical analysis of available facts is not something children are capable of, they simply believe whatever they're told. Some people never adopt this style of cognitive analysis.
Apparently it's only necessary in certain situations or professions.
Important Milestones of Cognitive Development in Children
Cognitive Development in Children | Stages & Changes in Adolescence

 

[Sheldon]

Valjean said: ↑
No, religious belief, or a religious world-view, is instilled very early in life, before children have the capacity for rational thought. ...

I think children have that capacity even before they are born.

A developing foetus according to all the medical evidence remains insentient until after they are born, and only then start to store memories. The idea that a developing foetus has a greater capacity to be rational than an adult human is preposterous sorry.

And the capacity to understand is greatest in children.

Logic? That seem s a very dubious notion to me, can you demonstrate anything to support that? My experience is children are very trusting of adults, I guess that's why it's easy to convince them of things Santa Claus and the tooth fairy. And why religions start indoctrinating them from as early an age as possible, before they have had a chance to develop critical thinking skills.

Adults are not very good, but they know more and have better ability to speak.

I don't believe children are even aware of logic, so I have to remain very dubious about your claim.

 

[rational experiences]

I own a basic human self survival conscious reality. Inherited it instinctively.

I nearly died as a baby. Fact of evidence due to atmospheric radiation changes.

Since that moment any nuclear study atmospheric experiment affected my life dream visions.

I learnt myself as one human proves we can by awareness. The self in presence.

So particular humans get notated in their one self advice.

Hence I learnt science the rocket man designer hurt my mother's head. I owned the dream vision that told me. As a child.

So most of our human experience in vision is falsified by man's chosen sciences if you all cared liar thinker theist to self assess your human ego.

Why a theist was not considered rational by a healer. Medical human biological self conscious presence human wisdom.

As we are the correct thinker. You place bio life in theism where it does not even exist. Coerce. Get human group support. Then destroy life.

The exact moment we are all facing

Earths ice massed pressurized water saviour rock of earth still fused owns our life spirit as cooled water. We depended on it.

Pretty basic advice for a lot of egotists who I personally observed wondering why about behaviours. As you spruik about how intelligent you all are then sneering at anyone who would not conform.

I loved human spiritual life mind who gently taught basic why you science atheist is wrong. But you just sneered at them.

 

[rational experiences]

The baby human life.

Said I use presence. Present. Exact human advice versus a father man adult. Past term.

I am a man human born direct from a holy human mother's life body only.

Correct natural identified human use of fact

Who taught. Baby man.

DNA after Moses science mutation genesis had healed human life returned. As my mother's cell ovary in her human womb had healed.

God status within water holy and oxygenation within.

My life...my father's life before me a baby owned life from ova ovah ovary.

He however theoried about human DNA being dead. As KRA ARK Baboon a fake human parent.

No human baby inheritance.

The teaching in theoretics is only ever human.

His answer as an adult human scientist is no different today than before. But I know he said.

Why and how?

Gods heavens changed so ape sex produced a human.

Did gods heavens change back so apes can just own ape babies?

No....why do you ask? As humans would have changed back into ape humans.

They did.

Why father scientist?

I mutated them by their used man theme back when there is no back reaction.

Why?

I owned a machine thesis to perform the reaction now.

Lied. As the human scientist.

The science argument. I own no proof where a human life came from.

As it is humans as humans being held as a man doing all the theorising.

Biology says humans DNA is only humans as the design human owns it. Carries DNA within.

The human however by design is not DNA our design is a human in form.

Question....why did man of science say image?

O earth space law.
O ovary health human law.

There never was an evolution thesis.

 

[DNB]

And here lies the problem. As long as this is believed, progress is impossible.
In reality, science has been investigating this for a long time, and has made considerable progress -- without resort to a magical "explanation."
No, morality has been hard-wired into the human brain by millions of years of evolution. Coöperation, tribal solidarity and altruism were absolutely essential for the survival of a weak, slow, plains ape on the African Savanna.
Our capability to imagine a hypothetical has nothing to do with the reality of the hypothetical. Presupposing God; making him axiomatic, obviates any need to demonstrate his existence, and undermines the most crucial point in any discussion of him.

Man's innate desire and need to both comprehend and apprehend the supernatural, necessitates a source for this impulse. No other creature on earth delves into these realms, nor can they.
Evolution does not develop spiritual awareness as in love, altruism, charity, compassion, etc... The ontological requirements must be there to begin with. Again, there is a distinct dichotomy and disparity between what man can fathom and comprehend, than what any other living being on this planet can. And, it is not intellect that defines this distinction, for if there is no God, then the catalyst behind such a deluded belief would have to be a lack of intelligence, or a malfunction in one's perception.