Do you believe in God?

[firedragon]

I wrote,

"If a god can affect nature, it is part of nature. Nature is the collection of things that can affect one another, also called reality. The critical thinker won't give the theist the pass he expects for his gods simply by declaring them immune to empiricism and reason. Those are things one says about a false belief to explain the absence of evidence for it."

Cause and effect are both part of nature. What's the justification for saying otherwise? I know the claim, and I think I understand why it's made. People are trying to justify an unevidenced belief in what is possibly a nonexistent deity and are trying to explain why nobody can find their god even if it exists using words and phrases like supernatural and outside of time. But without ideas such beliefs, there is no reason to rope off the place where some say this entity resides and call it supernatural. If it exists and can affect nature, that makes it another aspect of nature.

Once, people thought that disease like the plague was supernatural in origin, because people just got sick and died for no apparent reason, so it must be unseen malevolent actors. And it was unseen actors, albeit not malevolent, and they too were a part of nature. We know that because they could affect other aspects of nature, such as causing people to die of plague.

Okay. So?

 

[moahmd sare]

All I will say is that most of the monotheistic religions seem to have split into various factions over the years such that it is difficult to see any reason to choose one of these as being more truthful than another, and hence why we still have conflict between and within religions.

Yes, it's unfortunate so I try to only look at the sects and religions that make the most sense

 

[sayak83]

The thing is, in order to sustain such a position requires a very limited perception of the "evidence." By definition it is completely false. God or gods. Belief. I don't believe in the President; I do believe he exists. If, as I believe you had said, there is no evidence of gods, that is factually wrong. So, is it simply an empty ideology or is it a case of specifics not being applied? The definition of atheism is never "believing no evidence that specific gods (or the supernatural) doesn't exist."

Would you agree that atheism isn't terribly concerned about gods or the supernatural, Gods or the Bible, that there would be no objection to any of that unless it had some sociopolitical ramifications?

The atheists believe that it is a fact that there is no good evidence of the existence of any entity or entities who is/are responsible for the creation of the world and beings like us in it, or responsible for governing the course of history in the world from the backstage, so to speak. That is the main point. Other points are secondary or dependent on them. Since, if none of them exist outside of social constructs, then are, at best, useful fictions (like currency or nation states). But if they do exist as entities and did indeed create/govern the world, then we have an entirely different kettle of fish.
I agree that in many discussions socio-political ramifications are primarily discussed, but that is because the atheists are convinced that these are entirely socio political constructs and do not refer to any mind independent ontology at all. So, for them, there is nothing else worth discussing.

 

[sayak83]

Agreed.

One would need to detect some action or change with no apparent cause that behaved as if a conscious agent were the source. You're probably aware of the STEP study that tested the efficacy of prayer in patients undergoing cardiac surgery and found no difference in outcomes between those prayed for and those not getting prayer unless they were told that they were being prayed for, in which case they did worse.

Suppose it had turned out that those who were prayed for and didn't know it did much better than those who got no prayers. How can one account for that? We'd have demonstrated a salutary effect that resulted from prayer that occurred differentially in those getting the prayer as if somebody were responding to our prayers. That would support the claim that some mind hears us and has power over the world.

Of course, we're only going to be able to detect a god that intervenes in our world. We wouldn't expect to detect the god of the deists, a noninterventionist deity, but then again, being aware of its existence would be interesting but not useful knowledge.

I think it's you that's made the error. See above.

If a god can affect nature, it is part of nature. Nature is the collection of things that can affect one another, also called reality. The critical thinker won't give the theist the pass he expects for his gods simply by declaring them immune to empiricism and reason. Those are things one says about a false belief to explain the absence of evidence for it.

You seem to like dragons. Do you know about Sagan's invisible dragon in his garage? It's also undetectable, so it's as off limits to empirical testing as gods, likely for the same reason: The Dragon in My Garage

But you did dodge the issue: "Whatever your reason for believing a god exists, you've chosen to believe in the god of Abraham over the alternatives for a reason. For most people, it would be a combination of being acculturated into such beliefs as well as a desire to avoid extinction with death and be protected and get wishes granted while still alive"

Do you know what telepathy is? It seems not.

No, I'm not telepathic. I'm educated, observant, and a former Christian myself. I guess you don't know what Abrahamics want if you think it requires telepathy to know.

Something is comforting to you about the god you chose to believe in, and it doesn't matter to me which of those apply to you.

What hurdles? That he expects convincing evidence before accepting god claims. I present the same "convoluted hurdles" - critical thought and empiricism. It's how one minimizes accumulating incorrect and useless beliefs.

False god beliefs consume valuable resources if they lead to a religion, and if they don't, what difference does it make to believe in gods?

Yes. Don't you? Why would one even wear a watch with no concept of time?

I think what you are saying is wrong. The study would have detected beneficial effects of intercessory prayer, but would have stopped at that. Science, cannot, by definition conclude that some invisible non-naturally entity is intervening to make these prayers work. The studies would have simply stated positive effects are noted though the cause is unclear.

This is the same for actual studies that have shown that some children have verifiable memories of deceased person's they have no connection with. Lot of studies have shown this for decades, but science has not therefore concluded anything like "reincarnation is true". It simply says "reason unclear".

 

[RestlessSoul]

Agreed.

One would need to detect some action or change with no apparent cause that behaved as if a conscious agent were the source. You're probably aware of the STEP study that tested the efficacy of prayer in patients undergoing cardiac surgery and found no difference in outcomes between those prayed for and those not getting prayer unless they were told that they were being prayed for, in which case they did worse.

Suppose it had turned out that those who were prayed for and didn't know it did much better than those who got no prayers. How can one account for that? We'd have demonstrated a salutary effect that resulted from prayer that occurred differentially in those getting the prayer as if somebody were responding to our prayers. That would support the claim that some mind hears us and has power over the world.

Of course, we're only going to be able to detect a god that intervenes in our world. We wouldn't expect to detect the god of the deists, a noninterventionist deity, but then again, being aware of its existence would be interesting but not useful knowledge.

I think it's you that's made the error. See above.

If a god can affect nature, it is part of nature. Nature is the collection of things that can affect one another, also called reality. The critical thinker won't give the theist the pass he expects for his gods simply by declaring them immune to empiricism and reason. Those are things one says about a false belief to explain the absence of evidence for it.

You seem to like dragons. Do you know about Sagan's invisible dragon in his garage? It's also undetectable, so it's as off limits to empirical testing as gods, likely for the same reason: The Dragon in My Garage

But you did dodge the issue: "Whatever your reason for believing a god exists, you've chosen to believe in the god of Abraham over the alternatives for a reason. For most people, it would be a combination of being acculturated into such beliefs as well as a desire to avoid extinction with death and be protected and get wishes granted while still alive"

Do you know what telepathy is? It seems not.

No, I'm not telepathic. I'm educated, observant, and a former Christian myself. I guess you don't know what Abrahamics want if you think it requires telepathy to know.

Something is comforting to you about the god you chose to believe in, and it doesn't matter to me which of those apply to you.

What hurdles? That he expects convincing evidence before accepting god claims. I present the same "convoluted hurdles" - critical thought and empiricism. It's how one minimizes accumulating incorrect and useless beliefs.

False god beliefs consume valuable resources if they lead to a religion, and if they don't, what difference does it make to believe in gods?

Yes. Don't you? Why would one even wear a watch with no concept of time?

Yes, you go to such extraordinary lengths, to drown out the idea of God. If only you could silence your chattering mind, stay the torrent of words awhile, you might hear the voice of God, which is closer to you than your own heartbeat. What is it that you are so afraid of?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Yes, you go to such extraordinary lengths, to drown out the idea of God. If only you could silence your chattering mind, stay the torrent of words awhile, you might hear the voice of God, which is closer to you than your own heartbeat. What is it that you are so afraid of?

"Extraordinary lengths to drown out the idea of God"? "Chattering mind"? Don't you think I could accuse you of the opposite if I just wanted to throw words at somebody I don't really know? Let's try: Why do you go to such lengths to deceive yourself? When will your lethargic mind awaken from its stupor?

And I'm not afraid of religions. They have no value to me. I don't respect belief by faith (see below).

Okay. So?

Are you saying that you didn't see the relevance of that or are you saying that you just didn't understand it? It's a counterargument to the idea that something outside of nature could affect nature - to the suggestion that a cause of an effect in nature can be justifiably called unnatural (or supernatural or extranatural or juxtanatural). That's just a trick to explain why something nobody can find exists anyway, like Sagan's dragon - endless just-so explanations.

Nature (or reality) is the sum of all processes and objects that can interact with one another in space over time. Any other formulation is adding unnecessary complexity unless one is trying to explain the existence of that which is indistinguishable from nonexistent.

Once you start believing by faith, all kind of undesirable things can follow. One can even justify quelling the rights of pregnant women with unwanted pregnancies because he believes that his god wants him to. Or, he can go down the rabbit hole of trying to defend incoherent dogma. He may devote thousands of hours and thousands of dollars to his theology and come out of it with a confused worldview (YEC).

Or, when not in church, he may start believing nonreligious claims by faith as well, such as claims of election hoax, climate change hoax, vaccine hoax, spherical earth hoax, or moon landing hoax.

I guess you didn't look at Sagan's dragon. As I indicated, that's the kind of thinking that somebody who believes that a nonexistent object actually exists has to do to explain why nobody can find compelling evidence of the object of his belief (apologetics).

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I think what you are saying is wrong. The study would have detected beneficial effects of intercessory prayer, but would have stopped at that. Science, cannot, by definition conclude that some invisible non-naturally entity is intervening to make these prayers work. The studies would have simply stated positive effects are noted though the cause is unclear.

I think that if there were a significant positive correlation between prayer and good surgical outcomes (double blinded, that is, prayer and no prayer cohorts didn't know whether or not they were prayed for), that the author(s) would comment on that. How can one account for that? They might not have suggested gods, but the religious who pray to gods certainly would have, and what could be said to rebut their claim that a god was behind it?

This subject reminds me of the idea of falsifying the theory of evolution. I think the theory is very unlikely to ever be falsified, but we can imagine what that leaves us if an unambiguously falsifying find came to light. What's the new hypothesis that unifies the old data that once so strongly supported the theory with the new find? Deceptive intelligent designer. What else would be possible given the strata, the fossils, the radiodating, and the nested hierarchies? Somebody planted all of this evidence to deceive us into believing that theory. Suddenly, the creationists are emboldened. The skeptics would consider a race of naturally arising, superhuman extraterrestrials more likely than a supernatural god, but you can see the similarities between these two topics. Paradigms are at risk.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Nature (or reality) is the sum of all processes and objects that can interact with one another in space over time..

Yeah, right..
Don't call it interest, call it rent .. don't call it God, call it nature.

 

[firedragon]

"Extraordinary lengths to drown out the idea of God"? "Chattering mind"? Don't you think I could accuse you of the opposite if I just wanted to throw words at somebody I don't really know? Let's try: Why do you go to such lengths to deceive yourself? When will your lethargic mind awaken from its stupor?

And I'm not afraid of religions. They have no value to me. I don't respect belief by faith (see below).

Are you saying that you didn't see the relevance of that or are you saying that you just didn't understand it? It's a counterargument to the idea that something outside of nature could affect nature - to the suggestion that a cause of an effect in nature can be justifiably called unnatural (or supernatural or extranatural or juxtanatural). That's just a trick to explain why something nobody can find exists anyway, like Sagan's dragon - endless just-so explanations.

Nature (or reality) is the sum of all processes and objects that can interact with one another in space over time. Any other formulation is adding unnecessary complexity unless one is trying to explain the existence of that which is indistinguishable from nonexistent.

Once you start believing by faith, all kind of undesirable things can follow. One can even justify quelling the rights of pregnant women with unwanted pregnancies because he believes that his god wants him to. Or, he can go down the rabbit hole of trying to defend incoherent dogma. He may devote thousands of hours and thousands of dollars to his theology and come out of it with a confused worldview (YEC).

Or, when not in church, he may start believing nonreligious claims by faith as well, such as claims of election hoax, climate change hoax, vaccine hoax, spherical earth hoax, or moon landing hoax.

I guess you didn't look at Sagan's dragon. As I indicated, that's the kind of thinking that somebody who believes that a nonexistent object actually exists has to do to explain why nobody can find compelling evidence of the object of his belief (apologetics).

This is like going to a sermon and listening to an evangelical preacher.

 

[Caro]

I have noticed that poll's with this kind of question shows that most in this forum who are active are either Atheists or Agnostics. Actual religious people who believe in a God in a religious forum are the minority. It's not strange.

A belief in God is not absolutely due to a particular religion. It could also be based on reason and logic and it has been discussed for a long long time. Yet, it seems to be ignored and a lot of times the cart is shoved before the horse for whatever anti religious argumentation deemed needed.

Belief in God could stem from logical reasoning. Philosophical argumentation. Religions and scriptures are not absolutely necessary. I believe people should go to fundamentals rather than banking on peripherals to kill God. I think that's exactly what Nietzsche said being an Atheist with nihilistic tendencies.

What do you say??

This is a question I am struggling with now. I think I do, or I should, but my concept of God would probably not be familiar to any of the major religious traditions. I'm working it out. If I decide I believe in God, I do not thing she is the creator of everything. I think she may be specific to human beings. I think the creation of everything came from the Source, which is basically energy, and at one point caused the big bang, and that got everything physical rolling. We humans are part of the Source, but we're more than that. Exactly how is what I'm working out.

 

[firedragon]

This is a question I am struggling with now. I think I do, or I should, but my concept of God would probably not be familiar to any of the major religious traditions. I'm working it out. If I decide I believe in God, I do not thing she is the creator of everything. I think she may be specific to human beings. I think the creation of everything came from the Source, which is basically energy, and at one point caused the big bang, and that got everything physical rolling. We humans are part of the Source, but we're more than that. Exactly how is what I'm working out.

Read "Natural Theology" on a good book or website speaking about the topic of Philosophy.

 

[paarsurrey]

Do you believe in God?

Yes, I do believe in G-d, and it is very natural and reasonable, right?
I do know that some or many people who believe God to be physical and or a Spirit, they cannot perceive Him to be the Creator of the Universe, only because they cannot reconcile as to where was/is God?
Is He within the Universe/ or outside the Universe exactly at the same point of time and space?
Right?
It is a conceptual error, G-d is everywhere, inside the Universe/s and outside of them, since He is an attributive Being, not a physical person or spirit, please, right?
G-d is manifested in the Universe/s with his 99+ attributes, please, right?

Right?

 

[Muffled]

We don't have key witnesses such as the Roman soldiers who most probably buried what was left of Jesus in a mass grave in my view, we only have second hand stories by those who disagreed on the details.

Additionally I believe we don't have any writers writing as it happened, at best all we have is there memories and our memories from even 10-20 years ago are not much better than chance as our minds alter our memories each time they are accessed (if you have Netflix I recommend "the mind explained" for the scientific details of this.

It also doesn't help that the writers were salesmen in my view.

I believe we have the Holy Spirit who approves of the writers and that is God speaking.

 

[Muffled]

Do you believe in God?

Yes, I do believe in G-d, and it is very natural and reasonable, right?
I do know that some or many people who believe God to be physical and or a Spirit, they cannot perceive Him to be the Creator of the Universe, only because they cannot reconcile as to where was/is God?
Is He within the Universe/ or outside the Universe exactly at the same point of time and space?
Right?
It is a conceptual error, G-d is everywhere, inside the Universe/s and outside of them, since He is an attributive Being, not a physical person or spirit, please, right?
G-d is manifested in the Universe/s with his 99+ attributes, please, right?

Right?

God is Spirit. That is what the Bible says. It is just as reasonable without knowledge to believe or not believe in God. Knowledge makes a difference which is why there are agnostics who simply are saying they don't have knowledge so either case is possible.

 

[firedragon]

I believe we have the Holy Spirit who approves of the writers and that is God speaking.

Who approved the comma johanneum?

 

[McBell]

Who approved the comma johanneum?

um...
Loki?

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

Do you believe in God?

Yes, I do believe in G-d, and it is very natural and reasonable, right?

Hi paarsurrey

Excuse my question if sounds silly, but English is not my mother tongue and my knowledge of the language is limited.
Why do some people write "G-d" instead of God?

 

[paarsurrey]

Do you believe in God?
paarsurrey said:
Yes, I do believe in G-d, and it is very natural and reasonable, right?

Hi paarsurrey

Excuse my question if sounds silly, but English is not my mother tongue and my knowledge of the language is limited.
Why do some people write "G-d" instead of God?

First to differentiate from the Paulines who have invented Jesus-God or Holy-Spirit-God.
Jesus, Moses never taught the above they believed in One G-d.
Many languages just write the constants, not the vowels in the writing (Like Arabic, Persian, Urdu, Hebrew).
I found some Jews writing like it, I liked it and adopted it for me.

Right?

Regards

 

[danieldemol]

I believe we have the Holy Spirit who approves of the writers and that is God speaking.

I believe if the Holy Spirit is God speaking its a self contradictory God

 

[paarsurrey]

Do you believe in God?
paarsurrey said:
Yes, I do believe in G-d, and it is very natural and reasonable, right?

Hi paarsurrey

Excuse my question if sounds silly, but English is not my mother tongue and my knowledge of the language is limited.
Why do some people write "G-d" instead of God?

First to differentiate from the Paulines who have invented Jesus-God or Holy-Spirit-God.
Jesus, Moses never taught the above they believed in One G-d.
Many languages just write the constants, not the vowels in the writing (Like Arabic, Persian, Urdu, Hebrew).
I found some Jews writing like it, I liked it and adopted it for me.
if everybody understands as to what is meant by G-d, then the purpose is well served, please.
Right?