Arriving at a Theistic Belief

[Onyx]

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?

 

[sun rise]

My journey did not start with belief in a literal deity nor with any evidence. As I've noted before, I started as an atheist. At one point I gradually started thinking there had to be something more than just pure materialism, that life had to have intrinsic meaning and that if there was intrinsic meaning then all the suffering etc had to have a purpose.

The evidence, both experiential and intellectual, came later.

 

[Lain]

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?

What is a "literal deity"?

Also I believe for a multitude of reasons (personal experience, argument, witnessing certain works, etc), people have beliefs I think because they think there is evidence for them and they will withstand the tides of life, and what qualifies concerning God can be personal experiences, arguments, and so on.

I favor experience greatly because if someone said to me "El Chapo is in the basement" I would not first argue with them over if that is even possible, I would just go into the basement and if he's not there I would say "you're full of it." To me God is the same way. Theists claim omnipresence and all sorts of things, so "show Yourself" is valid to me as a response to that.

 

[Valjean]

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?

Many people don't understand what constitutes real evidence. Many people don't test their "evidence."

 

[Onyx]

What is a "literal deity"?

Meaning real, not metaphorical, but it wasn't really necessary.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

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?

Well, if you suppose that people start with "evidence first," what would you consider that evidence to be?

Before you answer, consider this: if a child was born tomorrow, and somehow we could prevent anyone from telling (rather than showing) this child anything at all about a "god," what do you think that child would observe that would suggest to it that there is such a thing?

 

[Audie]

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?

Id need SOME reason.

 

[mangalavara]

Why do you believe?

I believe in Bhagavān because I am attracted to him, and he gives my life and the world meaning in a way that nothing else could.

Does belief necessarily require evidence?

In my opinion, belief of this kind does not require evidence, rather, it produces evidence.

When it comes to the role of evidence, my perspective is that the point of evidence isn't to determine whether or not theistic belief is rational or irrational. Instead, the nature of evidence is to show the believer that he or she is on the right path and is moving toward the ultimate goal: liberation from the cycle of transmigration.

If so, what qualifies?

In some classical Hindu philosophies, there are three sources of knowledge: perception, inference, and reliable testimony. Perception, as a source of knowledge, is not only external but also internal. The individual cannot externally perceive Bhagavān with the eyes, ears, nose, tongue, or hands due to Bhagavān not being a creature. Instead, Bhagavān is internally perceived by the individual's spiritual faculty because Bhagavān is utterly spiritual. For me, the internal or spiritual perception of Bhagavān qualifies as evidence. Such evidence is personal and it is meant to be helpful to the individual who obtains it.

 

[Nakosis]

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?

I think most start with testimony. A kind of evidence but maybe not always initially question as perhaps it should be.
Folks you feel you can trust tell you about their belief and experience. So you think there may be some truth to the claims.

Evidence is usually the testimony and personal experience. If you experience something for yourself that supports the testimony it becomes very persuasive.

What we experience however is a combination of external input from our senses and a prediction of reality based on what we believe reality to be.
For example if you believe in ghosts, you might experience seeing a ghost based on actual sensory input and your belief of what a ghost ought to look like.

Our beliefs provides the context of what we experience in the world.

So hearing testimony creates belief which provides the context for what we experience which then supports the testimony, imo.

Testimony plus personal experience becomes the evidence.

Because I've seen this process work over and over I tend to limit what I believe in.

 

[Onyx]

Before you answer, consider this: if a child was born tomorrow, and somehow we could prevent anyone from telling (rather than showing) this child anything at all about a "god," what do you think that child would observe that would suggest to it that there is such a thing?

I think humans evolved to become self-aware, intelligent beings. Because of that we're able to ask tough questions, but we're also capable of inventing answers, or personifying things of a "good" or "evil" nature.

But my goal isn't to devalue anyone's beliefs, I'm simply interested in how people arrive at them.

 

[Trailblazer]

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?

I did not believe in a deity first and then look for evidence to support it because I would not believe in a deity at all if there was no evidence.

The only reason I believe in a deity is because of my religion. I believe that Messengers of God are the only real evidence for God and God sends them as evidence and also to bring us messages.

 

[Onyx]

Instead, Bhagavān is internally perceived by the individual's spiritual faculty because Bhagavān is utterly spiritual. For me, the internal or spiritual perception of Bhagavān qualifies as evidence.

This reminds me of the idea that the gods would lose their divinity if they were directly involved with human affairs, yet are powerful enough that we can sense their presence and purpose. I can't remember where I saw that though.

 

[Onyx]

Folks you feel you can trust tell you about their belief and experience. So you think there may be some truth to the claims.

I can relate to this, good observation.

 

[Sutekh]

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

I believe in my theism through experience. My evidence based on my theistic belief is personal to that extent. If I told everyone of my theistic beliefs by trying to point out the evidence, they would either look at me as a nutcase, or give me the viewpoint that "this life is the only life." I personally disagree with that statement, as I feel there is more outside of this objective or physical universe. What qualifies to me of evidential theism is this, once you experience the presence through that deity within the psyche, then their must be that possible proof that their is a possible afterlife concept outside of this universe.

Don't get me wrong I believe in making the most and enjoying out of the here and now. I understand many viewpoints surrounding an afterlife concept can be regarded as theory. However this is my own personal take on it, concerning my theism.

 

[Sutekh]

I think humans evolved to become self-aware, intelligent beings. Because of that we're able to ask tough questions, but we're also capable of inventing answers, or personifying things of a "good" or "evil" nature.

I regard this to be the basis of the Black Flame from my personal viewpoint.

 

[Sutekh]

I feel that the psyche is unique in a sense. We can create our own deities by whatever name within that psyche and feel that strong connection with those deities that we identify with.

Me personally, I identify myself with the Devil. His very adversarial presence/characteristic within me. In my belief he is that first form/principle of isolate intelligence. I've always been a rebel when I was young, and I continue to be to this day. I don't want to come off as one who proselytize's, however this one quote that I like, is primarily where I'm coming from, I realize others may have differing opinions regarding it, and I respect that. - "Either you perceive and respect Satan as a metaphysical reality or you don't. If you do, he does not exist to be switched on and off at your preference or convenience but is a permanent, living presence in your consciousness." - Michael Aquino

 

[Heyo]

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?

There is no way to arrive at a theistic belief system through evidence and logic. At some point you have to make a "leap of faith" (or, as it's called in logic, a "jump to conclusions").
This is usually done by bundling up a host of beliefs. E.g. "I believe the Bible/Koran/Harry Potter to be true.".

I'm not sure that there can't be a reasonable theistic belief, just because we have no existing example. I'm willing to discuss that option, here or in a separate OP.

As a starting point consider:

Observation: galaxies rotate too fast to explain that with known physics.
Conclusion: there has to be something that causes the galaxies to stay together.
Definition: we call that "something" Dark Matter.

Observation: the universe exists and seems to have started in a way not explained by known physics.
Conclusion: there had to have been a cause that started the universe.
Definition: we call that "something" god.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Why do you believe?

I think at bottom belief is a choice, and then thoughts form to support it. It can be a subconscious choice but not automatic.

People often say "I can't believe this is really happening" or "Is this really happening?" or "Its like a dream." They are deciding then and there what to believe. They have decided and are adding reasoning to support their decision. That reasoning is often flawed, yet the belief remains. Reason depends upon belief more than the other way round.

Does belief necessarily require evidence?

If you think evidence should be necessary you will choose to believe things that have evidence. If you don't you will dismiss evidence. This will seem natural and the most reasonable approach. Nobody is like Sherlock Holmes, but we are all like the idiot police inspector who makes irrational leaps. I mean at the most basic level of choice we are. I'm not saying that there isn't logic or that reason is useless. I'm saying we choose it for less than rational reasons. We become interested in rationality for irrational reasons.

But my goal isn't to devalue anyone's beliefs, I'm simply interested in how people arrive at them.

Passion drives us.

 

[Samael_Khan]

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?

Evidence is necessary when you are trying to convert someone else. Also in the conversations regarding evidence for a believe, I have found that this discussion largely crops up between discussions with followers of Christianity and Islam and non believers because many believers of these religions make factual claims about history and those around them based on their faith.

But actually, imo, all belief needs evidence, as people believe for a reason, and in most instances the evidence is experiential and personal rather than being discovered through the scientific method. If we look at what we accept as true in everyday life, most of what we believe about reality is based off of second hand or worse evidence, as often times we do not have the expertise or the capabilities to determine many things to be true. So I don't see scientific evidence as important to most things except when a belief oppresses others or causes some other form of harm.

 

[Sheldon]

I think many people do start with what they consider to be evidence first, even if it's not generally accepted as such.

Could you demonstrate a few examples of such "evidence" for us please?