Do you believe in God?

[firedragon]

While it is possible to believe in some form of god without being religious, such people generally aren't going to be arguing, debating or preaching on the topic in the same way that some religious people do (possibly even non-theistic religious people). I think formal religions can even complicate the matter, with followers echoing the religious doctrine about their god without really thinking about any logical reasoning, and sometimes even explicitly rejecting any attempt to present it.

Formal religions have presented many logical reasonings through time.

 

[Saggath]

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??

I was a strong believer for while. Then a doubter for a long while. Eventually, as I became familiar with philosophical arguments, I came to understand that there was and is something that is generally called God. So I agree with you, from experience, that the beliefs that some people hold relating to God are based on philosophical reasons. I am familiar with, I think, only one argument based on formal logic.

I discovered that many people - almost all - that tell me there is no good argument, or they have heard all the arguments - they had heard very few well-developed arguments.. So I realized there will always be arguments I have not yet heard, and, to quote something not too far afield, "science (knowledge) is never 'settled'."

 

[firedragon]

The OP states;
"A belief in God is not absolutely due to a particular religion. It could also be based on reason and logic"

My response to that was essentially yes it could be if the God was a material thing, but not if it wasn't in my view.

You asked for further elaboration, that is why I took into account the concept of God you hope for us to accept as logical even though it plainly is not in my view.

Thanks for giving your concept of God.

 

[firedragon]

I was a strong believer for while. Then a doubter for a long while. Eventually, as I became familiar with philosophical arguments, I came to understand that there was and is something that is generally called God. So I agree with you, from experience, that the beliefs that some people hold relating to God are based on philosophical reasons. I am familiar with, I think, only one argument based on formal logic.

I discovered that many people - almost all - that tell me there is no good argument, or they have heard all the arguments - they had heard very few well-developed arguments.. So I realized there will always be arguments I have not yet heard, and, to quote something not too far afield, "science (knowledge) is never 'settled'."

Thank you so much. I guess I agree with you on that.

 

[Balthazzar]

I don't believe God is less than what God is. I also don't believe God is all merciful.

For me to believe God is All-Merciful I would need evidence and I don't see how letting us cruelly suffer when having the power to create a Universe entirely without suffering constitutes being All-Merciful. It just does not compute with me anymore than it would with you if I told you up is really down.

Different minds work differently I guess. We are bound not to agree on what constitutes logic or what constitutes reliable evidence for a proposition.

Based on your "chosen" concept of what God needs to be, I agree. Otherwise, I'm in agreement with the all powerful, all knowing, and all merciful God as I understand God as being the all-encompassing universe of which we are extensions of.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Formal religions have presented many logical reasonings through time.

Can you list a few of the ones you think are sound?

 

[firedragon]

Based on your "chosen" concept of what God needs to be, I agree. Otherwise, I'm in agreement with the all powerful, all knowing, and all merciful God as I understand God as being the all-encompassing universe of which we are extensions of.

"Extensions Of"? Are you a Pantheist?

 

[danieldemol]

Formal religions have presented many logical reasonings through time.

They haven't presented any logically sound reasoning through time in my view.

 

[firedragon]

They haven't presented any logically sound reasoning through time in my view.

Nice. Thanks.

 

[danieldemol]

Nice. Thanks.

You are welcome. Happy to be of service

 

[Balthazzar]

It's not a matter of "denying" god concepts as much as pursuing truth and noting that the pursuit doesn't end up anywhere near any gods.




I don't think that there's a coherent definition of "god" other than the list of every god humanity has ever believed in.

That being said, I think it's unreasonable to consider certain things referred to as "gods" by some ss gods (e.g. the Sun, the Universe, Haile Selassie, "deified" Roman emperors, etc.).




None. I've never believed in any gods.


What do you think makes "all" or "the universe" God? I mean, when you talk about intelligence behind the form of the universe, it certainly sounds like we disagree on what fundamentally exists, not just what to call the things we both agree exist.

You've chosen a concept you've deemed fit to deny as God. I have also. The difference is in definition of, which you've chosen to reject based on your preference of what you think God should or shouldn't be, namely the concepts you reject and the universe being God which we both agree exists.

You seem to think God needs to be some vague concept you should deny and not something tangible and evidenced which you cannot. Why is that?

 

[Saggath]

What philosophical arguments convinced them?

(I ask this as someone who has never seen an argument for god(s) that didn't contain fatal flaws)

If any philosophical arguments convinced people, I'm sure Thomas Aquinas' "proofs" (they are called proofs, whether or not they were intended as proofs; I think they were intended more as characterizations or explanations) would be near the top. The few problems that have been suggested to me were not fatal to the overall presentation.

I have not read Al-Ghazali’s complete text, but I have been told that his very different strategy has likewise proved itself convincing.

 

[Saggath]

Can you list a few of the ones you think are sound?

Kalam

 

[firedragon]

If any philosophical arguments convinced people, I'm sure Thomas Aquinas' "proofs" (they are called proofs, whether or not they were intended as proofs; I think they were intended more as characterizations or explanations) would be near the top. The few problems that have been suggested to me were not fatal to the overall presentation.

I have not read Al-Ghazali’s complete text, but I have been told that his very different strategy has likewise proved itself convincing.

You should also check out the Wajibul Wujood argument of Ibn Rushd. Interesting.

 

[Balthazzar]

"Extensions Of"? Are you a Pantheist?

I tend to place an "en" in the middle, but in my most simple acceptance of God I acknowledge the pantheist title. The "en" is more about what's yet to be or become - as I apply it.

Simple answer:

Yes, I'm a pantheist.

 

[firedragon]

I tend to place an "en" in the middle, but in my most simple acceptance of God I acknowledge the pantheist title. The "en" is more about what's yet to be or become - as I apply it.

Simple answer:

Yes, I'm a pantheist.

Nice. Thank you.

 

[Saggath]

You should also check out the Wajibul Wujood argument of Ibn Rushd. Interesting.

Thanks, I found him in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. I'll read when I can!

 

[firedragon]

Thanks, I found him in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. I'll read when I can!

Sure. Bon Voyage.

 

[Saggath]

I believe science discovered the opposite. That far from our existence requiring unfathomable intelligence all it required was chemistry and the blind process of natural selection.

But if you can find me a peer reviewed science article referring to the "unfathomable intelligent make up of our existence" I'd be impressed.

Likewise, perhaps a peer reviewed science article demonstrating that our existence does not require intelligence, as for example, the ability to perceive or infer information; and to retain it so as to be applied to adaptive behaviors within an environment or context.?

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

How could you perceive or conceive a God if any? What do you mean by that? Is it to speak or touch a God?

perceive is to detect with my senses. Sensations can be induced by a number of means. If I feel something touching my arm when I do not see or otherwise detect anything there, what is that evidence of? If I see a ghostly figure, what is that evidence of? If I experience a revelatory vision, what is that evidence of? It feels to me like God...but what does that mean?

Beyond that, I know that my senses--or even any technological detectors I might use--actually only detect a very limited range of existing conditions, and can be easily overwhelmed by more powerful stimuli sources. And knowing that a telescope can image a galaxy billions of lightyears away, it is beyond my comprehension...sure, I can look at the smudge on the image and say wow...but...

Conceive is the mental processing of my mind. I have been aware since I was young that there are some things I just can't conceive. I can conceive of a mile...I've walked that distance many times, and I'm familiar with many paths at least a mile long. So I can think of ten of them in sequence...I've experienced that many times, and am familiar with many such paths. But a hundred of them...well, that's getting iffy. I've hiked that far in week or so a couple of times. I can think of driving that distance, which I've done thousands of times, but my knowledge, my conception, is not as detailed nor as accurate. Now, a thousand miles...

How about the distance to the moon? No, 235,000 miles is quite frankly beyond my comprehension. And then there's millions and billions and trillions of miles...Nope...no comprehension at all...I can only conceive of such by manipulating symbols that stand for incomprehensible quantities, measures, or relationships. And the cosmos is many, many orders of magnitude larger, and smaller...

Now, how can I comprehend--conceive--of an entity that knows and can control everything within the visible cosmic horizon? How could such an entity actually know and relate to me, a small being on a small planet in a typical galaxy...I can perceive the stars and planets, the galaxy...but I can't conceive of them...oh, sure, I can make maps of them, but that's not the reality...