Arriving at a Theistic Belief

[lukethethird]

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)?

God is an unfalsifiable proposition, so how does one propose that invisible does not exist? BTW, how does a theist discern invisible from non-existence, curious minds want to know?

 

[Jacob Samuelson]

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?

Belief, in my opinion. is a creation each individual makes to have in their lives order out of chaos. If you are into mathematics, numbers, negatives, fractions, null sets, infinite series, are all concepts designed to make possible understandable properties of the world around us. In basic mathematics if you add 2 to another 2 you get 4. However, today it is not that simple, many could manipulate the properties and definitions of any of the existing integer and instead incorporate complex proofs where the result could be equated to any variable you desire. Therefore you get equations like this, 2+2 = N. This is impressive for sure and almost magical to see these manipulations work out and it would be ignorant to say based on detailed proofs, the mathematician is wrong simply because in kindergarten a teacher taught you 2+2 will always equal 4. Much of our advances in science and physics come from our ability to manipulating basic concepts like numbers and patterns. So often in order to improve as a society we must be able to accept different versions of already known beliefs

Beliefs is like the variable N in my example. It has infinite direction, yet caused by understandable events in the world around each individual. If I were to survey the world population to know how many beliefs are based on a result of parental observance and influence. I might be able to see reasonable patterns that sourced the belief, I could assume that the next generation will likely follow the same or similar pattern. However, this is not always the case, and from what I gather today is becoming less of the case generation by generation as we see a decline of familiar observance and religious unity within a particular family unit.

Perhaps its the complexity and freedom that is deterring new generations to a common denominator belief, or perhaps its the boundless access to information that is making belief difficult to grasp or hold onto. Whatever the case, it appears evidence will never be concrete enough to formulate belief. The emergence of very unique beliefs and radical changes to existing beliefs is a sign for me that we are loosing ground on order and changing it back into chaos. It appears because of the chaos that people may not know what to believe in and so they pass it to others to do it for them. Belief was designed to be individually structured, understandable, and simplified, yet many have been sweep away by the complexity of information that I feel have forfeited much of their beliefs to something that makes the most noise. That looks the most smart or sophisticated. That gives the most money or power.

God is a constant. Out of the chaos that the world is turning politically and socially in search of belief, God has allowed theists the luxury of using eternal formulas such as love, compassion, charity, and forgiveness to nullify or simplify the complexities of the world around them. Belief in God gives theist something to hold onto like a kite in a stormy sky. God also is the common denominator of theist, therefore we are able to relate to experiences that have changed a bad day into a good one.

God resolves paradoxes. Time and Space can create many issues that are theorized but not well understood. The good thing about it is until we do understand time and space, we have God as the placeholder constant to be able to continue the formula. Once we solve Time and Space, God can be the placeholder for other amazing scientific advances. I believe there is no end to progression or science because God exists.

Belief in God just makes life easier to cope with. It makes complex problems not so hard to solve. We shouldn't get ignorant because of God, we should get inspired because of Him.

 

[rational experiences]

Man theists should stop talking.

The God O earth position.
Gods heavens position is real. For just a human.

I know God scientist. It is planet earth where I live only.
The heavens where I live inside.

I am not any theory of coercive human words.

Light said father sits in a voiding pressurized space vacuum travelling into burning and out of burning. Itself. Light travelling from a cold clear gas into its non existence says light.

Gas heavens one position with God in human life.

Wish you would use your mind position human only.

Fallout. Science brought sciences light constant out of natural light to the ground where his machine began.

Is mind possessed wholly and totally about travel through his timed gases by theory data only.

No tabling is heavens owned.

Men tabled sciences language theirselves. Talk science talk. Don't talk natural talk.

 

[Valjean]

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.

I agree. We are wired for this, and evolution is the source of the circuitry. Our neurology is the source. A magical creator is not necessary. It's our own, simplistic invention.
Are you not aware of the observations of awe and "religious" demonstrations in chimps?

Evolution does not develop spiritual awareness as in love, altruism, charity, compassion, etc... The ontological requirements must be there to begin with.

The "ontological requirements" are the drivers -- of adaptation and natural selection. Natural selection selects for both anataomy and psychology. Why would it not?

Natural selection 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.

Ethologists are finding that comparative cognition among different species seems, more and more, to be quantitative as much or more than qualitative. Intellect is a continuum.

"...if there is no God, then the catalyst behind such a deluded belief would have to be a lack of intelligence..."

This simply does not follow. How do you come to this conclusion without an a priori presumption of a divine source?

 

[Valjean]

God is an unfalsifiable proposition, so how does one propose that invisible does not exist?

By reason. For the same reason you don't believe in the time-travelers of planet Tralfamidor.

It's reasonable to lack belief in that for which there is no evidence. It's unreasonable to believe in things with no evidence.

 

[RestlessSoul]

God is an unfalsifiable proposition, so how does one propose that invisible does not exist? BTW, how does a theist discern invisible from non-existence, curious minds want to know?

We discern the invisible by using other senses. Is birdsong visible? Or the scent of a rose?

 

[RestlessSoul]

By reason. For the same reason you don't believe in the time-travelers of planet Tralfamidor.

It's reasonable to lack belief in that for which there is no evidence. It's unreasonable to believe in things with no evidence.

Is it reasonable to dismiss evidence simply because it doesn’t meet your preconceptions? If millions of people testify that they have had profound spiritual experiences of a kind they consider truly miraculous, is it reasonable to claim this does not constitute evidence?

 

[Sheldon]

Man's innate desire and need to both comprehend and apprehend the supernatural, necessitates a source for this impulse.

No it doesn't, that's a pretty obvious circular reasoning fallacy.

No other creature on earth delves into these realms, nor can they.

You keep claiming this, even after failing several times to demonstrate how you could possibly know this.

"What do chimp ‘temples’ tell us about the evolution of religion?"

Not evidence that chimpanzees believe in deities necessarily, but your claim is both dismissive of some evidence, and is itself unevidenced.

Evolution does not develop spiritual awareness as in love, altruism, charity, compassion, etc...

Another sweeping unevidenced claim, and one that is not remotely evidenced by the theory of evolution. Species evolution is an objective fact, and so is the existence of those behaviours and emotions, if your going to try and tack on unevidenced magic from an unevidenced deity, then Occam's razor applies.

The ontological requirements must be there to begin with.

Argument from assertion fallacy.

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.

No it isn't, it's just a bare unevidenced claim you keep dishonestly churning out.

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.

You think the human is infallible and incapable of being irrational or mistaken? You're on a roll here, fair play. You should stick to making up bs about other species, Dr Doolittle.

 

[Valjean]

Is it reasonable to dismiss evidence simply because it doesn’t meet your preconceptions? If millions of people testify that they have had profound spiritual experiences of a kind they consider truly miraculous, is it reasonable to claim this does not constitute evidence?

People have always had profound spiritual experiences. They're not good evidences of anything but profound spiritual experiences, especially considering that there's no consistent cause or attribution.
People of all religions, and none, have them.

 

[RestlessSoul]

People have always had profound spiritual experiences. They're not good evidences of anything but profound spiritual experiences, especially considering that there's no consistent cause or attribution.
People of all religions, and none, have them.

Yes, people of all religions and none, have always had these experiences. First hand accounts of tangible contact with transcendent realities, are common to all cultures and traditions. Surely the universality of such experiences makes them more credible, not less? Of course, in order to comprehend and communicate such a personal epiphany, individuals use language, references, and constructs from their own time, place, and culture. Hence we see a wide variety of spiritual experiences, but all with a common thread; an awakening to a new relationship with one's true self, the self beyond ego; and thereby with all of creation.

 

[BilliardsBall]

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 trust Jesus due to the evidence for the Bible both within and outside the Bible.

 

[Sheldon]

atheism, which requires accepting an unfalsifiable proposition (that God does not exist)?

No it doesn't.

 

[Valjean]

Yes, people of all religions and none, have always had these experiences. First hand accounts of tangible contact with transcendent realities, are common to all cultures and traditions. Surely the universality of such experiences makes them more credible, not less? Of course, in order to comprehend and communicate such a personal epiphany, individuals use language, references, and constructs from their own time, place, and culture. Hence we see a wide variety of spiritual experiences, but all with a common thread; an awakening to a new relationship with one's true self, the self beyond ego; and thereby with all of creation.

Good points, and maybe valid if referring only to the Mystical Experience, which is fairly consistent and universal. But even this seems to have no relation to religion or the Abrahamic God.

Other "profound spiritual experiences" are extremely varied, unrelated to any particular religion, and informants seem to be referring to a wide variety of different experiences.

 

[Valjean]

I trust Jesus due to the evidence for the Bible both within and outside the Bible.

I distrust Jesus, due to lack of evidence both within and without The Bible.

 

[lukethethird]

We discern the invisible by using other senses. Is birdsong visible? Or the scent of a rose?

So you are saying God, an unfalsifiable proposition, can be detected like a birdsong, or the scent of a rose, what do you take me for?

 

[Sheldon]

I trust Jesus due to the evidence for the Bible both within and outside the Bible.

Care to demonstrate some of this evidence?

 

[We Never Know]

I would say that the vast majority of theists are raised to believe in a deity and never bother to look for evidence; they just take it as given that their beliefs are true.

What % is vast majority? Is that more or less than virtually all

 

[1213]

...My experience is children are very trusting of adults,....

That can be true, it still does not make them less able to understand things.

 

[Sheldon]

That can be true, it still does not make them less able to understand things.

No one said it did, but that was not your claim...this was Valjean's post...

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

This was your reply...

I think children have that capacity even before they are born. And the capacity to understand is greatest in children.

You have yet to offer anything beyond your bare unevidenced claim that children are more able to think rationally than adults, and even a foetus is more able to think rationally than an adult.

 

[Sheldon]

If millions of people testify that they have had profound spiritual experiences of a kind they consider truly miraculous, is it reasonable to claim this does not constitute evidence?

Yes, as it is the very definition of an argumentum ad populum fallacy.